Social networking and social software have taken off in the new millennium,
expanding outward from content-based communities like the WELL and Slashdot
to systems focused on connecting people, such as Ryze, LinkedIn, Friendster
and Tribe. While these new networks offer services that help one connect to
others of like mind, they remain isolated islands with centralized control of
profile data and no mechanism for their users to transfer accumulated profile
information or reputation capital from one community to another. As such, the
primary beneficiaries remain the site owners and not the people that create
the value.
In short, the goal of Identity Commons is to create a trusted data
interchange network - an interoperable means of sharing private, identifiable
data about people and organizations in such a way that all Identity Commons
members can trust the safety and security of this data. Such a network can:
Enable new forms of online community, interaction, and dialog that
empower digital citizenship and improve the quality of life
Pave the way for new identity and profile-based products, services and
applications that:
Significantly simplify online transactions and improve the value of
digital relationships for individuals
Reduce costs, improve customer relationships, and enable new products
and services from all types of organizations (non-profit, commercial,
governmental, informal).
I was "outsourced" two years ago and after 25 years of seamlessly moving
between companies with never once even writing a resume, I haven't been able
to get back into the market.
the good: I've had lots of time to play with my 2 year
old son
the bad: I've got a family to feed
the ugly: I'm learning that experience in the industry
hurts ones chances te land a job, as we're considered "too expensive"
I've found a few consulting gigs to help, but now I'm moving out of the Bay
Area - can't afford to live here anymore.
Be sure to check out Steve's Digicams great Holiday Wish List section categorized by price range. I generally agree with their picks (and reviews).
speek kills...
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...resource hogs.
While I'm not an XML zealot, I like the clarity it can bring to many domains of practice. Regarding the performance hit, get a faster computer! If you don't have a fast enough one yet, wait a year.
Lisp was shunned in the past primarily for speed reasons, too. Now the main reason many don't like Lisp is because they don't understand advanced software engineering concepts and write poor Lisp code.
I realized after writing that (rather hastily as I still need to finish
packing for a two-week trip starting at 6 AM tomorrow morning) that I didn't
offer any answer at all to the original question. So let me introduce you to
another interesting rating mechanism, Affero, which enables you to rate others who
help you out by essentially donating to causes they believe in. For example,
if this helps you at all, you can rate
me.
As you suggest, a distributed, global (federated) identity would make this
all a lot easier and work a lot better. Persistent profile information is
powerful and offers many advantages to citizens, corporations and all those
middlemen, but can lead to serious privacy abuses if the information is not
securely - and absolutely - controlled by the profile owner.
The fact that global identity is so valuable has not escaped the eye of
marketing departments everywhere, and there are several projects aimed at
establishing global identities for consumers. (Note that I say "consumers"
here rather than "citizens" as the systems being designed generally only see
you as a consumer and nothing more. Therefore, since there's nothing to buy
on Slashdot or Poliglut, you probably wouldn't exist on those systems.)
There are two main problems with the currently proposed systems: Passport,
designed by Microsoft, is a wholly centralized system. (The only thing good
about this is that your profile data in Passport is not in danger of being
bought by Microsoft!) The other system is Project Liberty, a system being
put together by a scary consortium of BigCos. EPIC has a good, short paper
on the privacy considerations of Liberty here.
...to create the world's premier electronic system for individuals and
organizations to interact commercially, socially and personally, while
providing every entity with control of its information, identity, and
relationships consistent with healthy communities.
I'm a member of the tech group and suffice to say we're looking at a very
hard problem. One of the key insights into this work is that we don't need
to build a global namespace. Not only is that hard (viz PKI) but it's not
even what people really want. Rather, people belong to groups and have
local names for people within their groups. As people from other groups get
introduced into one's local group, they either get local names or become
known as "xyz from 123 group". While global URIs may exist to uniquely point
to every object in the universe, they are generally difficult to manage and
use.
So where does one go? First, of course it has to be open source. PGP's web of trust,
Ron Rivest's and Carl Ellison's SPKI/SDSI, and Matt Blaze's Keynote all offer secure
local name spaces and even integrated trust management systems. (Thought I
had forgotten about your original point, didn't you?) We're nearing
completion of a requirements specification and hope to have an initial
implementation by years end. And this is being done mostly by volunteers, as
there's no money (yet).
BTW, one of the most difficult problems facing federated identity systems
such as Liberty is how to get all these BigCos to work together. We're
following Chaordic approach that, like
the Visa payment system, melds simple but powerful global unilateral
agreements (Principles) with local control of agreements that control
inter-group relationships.
The Southwest contains incredible beauty and mystery. I have been more blown away by Chaco Canyon than just about any other place on earth. See the Soltice Project for info on how it may have been part of an giant atrononomical instrument.
privacy vs openess (free vs. totalitarian)
on
Databases and Privacy
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The problem isn't that the info is available. The problem is
that it is only available to the rich and powerful.
And it's only getting worse!
One of the fundamental contrasts between free democratic societies and
totalitarian systems is that the totalitarian government [or other
totalitarian organization] relies on secrecy for the regime but high
surveillance and disclosure for all other groups, whereas in the civic
culture of liberal democracy, the position is approximately the reverse.
-- Professor Geoffrey de Q Walker, dean of law at
Queensland, critiquing ID cards (1986)
Any contribution is accepted
on
RMS Turns 50
·
· Score: 1
It's a tribute to GNU and the FSF that you could wipe the disk and install Debian (or just about any other GNU/Linux distro) and it would work, right off the 'net.
But it sucks that you'd be paying the M$ Tax, so just make a
contribution.
It wasn't until the late 1800s did a court ruling determine that corporations
were people and thus were entitled to the same rights as flesh and blood
citizens.
Actually, it was more like this:
In the 1886 Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state tax assessor, not the county
assessor, had the right to determine the taxable value of fenceposts along
the railroad's right-of-way.
However, in writing up the case's headnote -- a commentary that has no
precedential status -- the Court's reporter, a former railroad president
named J.C. Bancroft Davis, opened the headnote with the sentence: "The
defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section
1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which
forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."
For the complete background, and very interesting reading, see Humans
Vs. Corporations or if that's/.ed, try here.
It wasn't until the late 1800s did a court ruling determine that corporations were people and thus were entitled to the same rights as flesh and blood citizens.
Once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, it's hard to put it back. The
government (and the RIAA and the MPAA, who have strong governmental forces
behind them) can certainly slow technological adoption, especially when the
money flow to the rich and powerful is threatened. But the "natural order"
of technology will prevent it from being squelched for long. For example,
P2P networking - the heart of any truly free communication process whether
electronic or interpersonal - has been temporarily squelched with the recent
demise of Napster. But while P2P still thrives in the underground, quietly
P2P is finding its way into the mainstream, for example IBM's YouServ.
The RIAA (to pick a target) built their business model on scarcity - creating
first vinyl, then CDs, was something the public couldn't do, and they
provided a service. They developed that service into an empire, and now they
are using lawyers and laws to enforce an artificial scarcity to protect that
empire.
What the folk at the RIAA have failed to grasp is that the world is changing.
Though they will no longer be able to gouge the artists, they are in a unique
position to drive the future distributed music business model. One
possibility is for the RIAA to take the pulse from the 'Net and promote the
acts that people want to see, rather that pushing the acts that they have
signed to a market segment. The power shifts from corporate to public,
but there is still room for corporations to make a lot of money - if they act
in the public's best interest.
So given that the RIAA is not leading the way into the brave new world, we
can expect to experience a period of instability during which many new
technologies and business models will be created along with as many, if not
more, laws attempting to preserve the aging status quo. Bottom line, I
believe that there will be a music business in the future. But as it will be
distributed and likely open, more people will make more money, and a few will
make much less.
Finally, I'll bring up the Grateful Dead. They were the top grossing band of
their time, and they made it off of performances, not album sales. In fact,
they are famous for encouraging people to tape and trade their live concerts.
They made money and their promoters made money. Ultimately, for any
"software" (defined as anything that can be reduced to bits) the money is in
the timely creation (performance), backup, search and retrieval (libraries,
Google), authentication ('is that really an authentic <fill_in_the_blank>?') and support.
Classic distribution channels are dead.
Similarly, government efforts to curtail technological advances such as
encryption and (Internet) free speech have lost. Such efforts will be again
doomed (ultimately - though perhaps not without great struggle) when they
return (in all probability) as part of Homeland Security.
...that there are so many posts from so many \.ers who are defending their use of Windows.
Get off of it. If it's games, break the habit (and go outside and play a real game with your friends).
Disclaimer: though I have been and will continue to be a UNIX user (since 1975), I bought a Mac in '85 as a document appliance and two years ago I bought a Windows box 'cause it made working at home for some of my clients easier.
What is really sad is that all the politicos spend large sums of money to maintain their books on paper with teams of accountants, rather than having one or two staff members keep it all in something like QuickBooks, which would be much cheaper.
Their rationale? This way, they can correctly state that it would cost a lot of money to transfer their books into some electronically accessible form.
I just want to say that Speakeasy has been great for me.
One of the great things about Speakeasy has been their customer service. They understand Linux, know what traceroute is and can and will check things for you. I only needed that help once in the last three years.
May be location dependant - I'm in San Francisco.
Lame Haiku (topic spam)
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 1
One two three four five Six seven eight nine ten twelve I skipped eleven
This was a favorite topic at my first conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-77 (at MIT). Haven't heard many people talk about it since. Are emotions still considered integral to intelligence?
My favorite AI quote: "Intelligence is what computers can't do... yet"
Slashdot Mirror
In short, the goal of Identity Commons is to create a trusted data interchange network - an interoperable means of sharing private, identifiable data about people and organizations in such a way that all Identity Commons members can trust the safety and security of this data. Such a network can:
- the good : I've had lots of time to play with my 2 year
old son
- the bad : I've got a family to feed
- the ugly : I'm learning that experience in the industry
hurts ones chances te land a job, as we're considered "too expensive"
I've found a few consulting gigs to help, but now I'm moving out of the Bay Area - can't afford to live here anymore.Be sure to check out Steve's Digicams great Holiday Wish List section categorized by price range. I generally agree with their picks (and reviews).
...resource hogs.
While I'm not an XML zealot, I like the clarity it can bring to many domains of practice. Regarding the performance hit, get a faster computer! If you don't have a fast enough one yet, wait a year.
Lisp was shunned in the past primarily for speed reasons, too. Now the main reason many don't like Lisp is because they don't understand advanced software engineering concepts and write poor Lisp code.
Intelligence is what computers can't do (yet).
What happens when the Right to Lifers get ahold of someone wanting to pull the plug on a "life"?
Yeesh!
I realized after writing that (rather hastily as I still need to finish packing for a two-week trip starting at 6 AM tomorrow morning) that I didn't offer any answer at all to the original question. So let me introduce you to another interesting rating mechanism, Affero, which enables you to rate others who help you out by essentially donating to causes they believe in. For example, if this helps you at all, you can rate me.
As you suggest, a distributed, global (federated) identity would make this all a lot easier and work a lot better. Persistent profile information is powerful and offers many advantages to citizens, corporations and all those middlemen, but can lead to serious privacy abuses if the information is not securely - and absolutely - controlled by the profile owner.
The fact that global identity is so valuable has not escaped the eye of marketing departments everywhere, and there are several projects aimed at establishing global identities for consumers. (Note that I say "consumers" here rather than "citizens" as the systems being designed generally only see you as a consumer and nothing more. Therefore, since there's nothing to buy on Slashdot or Poliglut, you probably wouldn't exist on those systems.)
There are two main problems with the currently proposed systems: Passport, designed by Microsoft, is a wholly centralized system. (The only thing good about this is that your profile data in Passport is not in danger of being bought by Microsoft!) The other system is Project Liberty, a system being put together by a scary consortium of BigCos. EPIC has a good, short paper on the privacy considerations of Liberty here.
There's a new group in this area working...
I'm a member of the tech group and suffice to say we're looking at a very hard problem. One of the key insights into this work is that we don't need to build a global namespace. Not only is that hard (viz PKI) but it's not even what people really want. Rather, people belong to groups and have local names for people within their groups. As people from other groups get introduced into one's local group, they either get local names or become known as "xyz from 123 group". While global URIs may exist to uniquely point to every object in the universe, they are generally difficult to manage and use.So where does one go? First, of course it has to be open source. PGP's web of trust, Ron Rivest's and Carl Ellison's SPKI/SDSI, and Matt Blaze's Keynote all offer secure local name spaces and even integrated trust management systems. (Thought I had forgotten about your original point, didn't you?) We're nearing completion of a requirements specification and hope to have an initial implementation by years end. And this is being done mostly by volunteers, as there's no money (yet).
BTW, one of the most difficult problems facing federated identity systems such as Liberty is how to get all these BigCos to work together. We're following Chaordic approach that, like the Visa payment system, melds simple but powerful global unilateral agreements (Principles) with local control of agreements that control inter-group relationships.
...by time spent reading all the /. articles about this frivolous suit by SCO
The Southwest contains incredible beauty and mystery. I have been more blown away by Chaco Canyon than just about any other place on earth. See the Soltice Project for info on how it may have been part of an giant atrononomical instrument.
And it's only getting worse!
Looks like a pretty good resolution.
But it sucks that you'd be paying the M$ Tax, so just make a contribution.
some good reading here
It wasn't until the late 1800s did a court ruling determine that corporations were people and thus were entitled to the same rights as flesh and blood citizens.
what was the question?
Once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, it's hard to put it back. The government (and the RIAA and the MPAA, who have strong governmental forces behind them) can certainly slow technological adoption, especially when the money flow to the rich and powerful is threatened. But the "natural order" of technology will prevent it from being squelched for long. For example, P2P networking - the heart of any truly free communication process whether electronic or interpersonal - has been temporarily squelched with the recent demise of Napster. But while P2P still thrives in the underground, quietly P2P is finding its way into the mainstream, for example IBM's YouServ.
The RIAA (to pick a target) built their business model on scarcity - creating first vinyl, then CDs, was something the public couldn't do, and they provided a service. They developed that service into an empire, and now they are using lawyers and laws to enforce an artificial scarcity to protect that empire.
What the folk at the RIAA have failed to grasp is that the world is changing. Though they will no longer be able to gouge the artists, they are in a unique position to drive the future distributed music business model. One possibility is for the RIAA to take the pulse from the 'Net and promote the acts that people want to see, rather that pushing the acts that they have signed to a market segment. The power shifts from corporate to public, but there is still room for corporations to make a lot of money - if they act in the public's best interest.
So given that the RIAA is not leading the way into the brave new world, we can expect to experience a period of instability during which many new technologies and business models will be created along with as many, if not more, laws attempting to preserve the aging status quo. Bottom line, I believe that there will be a music business in the future. But as it will be distributed and likely open, more people will make more money, and a few will make much less.
Finally, I'll bring up the Grateful Dead. They were the top grossing band of their time, and they made it off of performances, not album sales. In fact, they are famous for encouraging people to tape and trade their live concerts. They made money and their promoters made money. Ultimately, for any "software" (defined as anything that can be reduced to bits) the money is in the timely creation (performance), backup, search and retrieval (libraries, Google), authentication ('is that really an authentic <fill_in_the_blank>?') and support. Classic distribution channels are dead.
Similarly, government efforts to curtail technological advances such as encryption and (Internet) free speech have lost. Such efforts will be again doomed (ultimately - though perhaps not without great struggle) when they return (in all probability) as part of Homeland Security.
...that there are so many posts from so many \.ers who are defending their use of Windows.
Get off of it. If it's games, break the habit (and go outside and play a real game with your friends).
Disclaimer: though I have been and will continue to be a UNIX user (since 1975), I bought a Mac in '85 as a document appliance and two years ago I bought a Windows box 'cause it made working at home for some of my clients easier.
I've actually gotten this one.
Of course, the problem is, which one is the "any" key?
What is really sad is that all the politicos spend large sums of money to
maintain their books on paper with teams of accountants, rather than having
one or two staff members keep it all in something like QuickBooks, which
would be much cheaper.
Their rationale? This way, they can correctly state that it would cost a lot
of money to transfer their books into some electronically accessible form.
I just want to say that Speakeasy has been great for me.
One of the great things about Speakeasy has been their customer service. They understand Linux, know what traceroute is and can and will check things for you. I only needed that help once in the last three years.
May be location dependant - I'm in San Francisco.
One two three four five
Six seven eight nine ten twelve
I skipped eleven
This was a favorite topic at my first conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-77 (at MIT). Haven't heard many people talk about it since. Are emotions still considered integral to intelligence?
My favorite AI quote: "Intelligence is what computers can't do... yet"