Verified by VISA uses a static password. What they're talking about are codes that are only valid for a short period of time, and are displayed directly on the card (not dissimilar from key-fobs used by large companies when accessing remotely - e.g., you have to enter the code displayed on the fob).
What it does for you is requiring you to have the card in order to finish the transaction; as opposed to anything with a static password where anyone anywhere could post a transaction if they had your password.
The big change proposed here is the mechanism to display the codes directly on the card, instead of requiring a separate card reader that you'd have to carry with you.
My argument is that people who grow up (for years now) having access to free music really don't see it as stealing..And in a way, it isn't, as they've been permitted to do it for so long and in such great depth.
I see two faults with this logic. First of all, just because someone has been able to get away with it for a while doesn't make it justifiable. The second you use this argument you've essentially permitted anything and everything that fulfills the criteria of: a) being wide-spread b) being difficult to track/prevent
Examples? Let's say that technology has made it possible for individuals to access their long-distance carrier and remove all record of long-distance calls last month making it possible to call overseas without charge (and yes, I know about voice over IP but that's not the point here). Is that allowed? After all, I bought my phone, I pay my monthly regular bill, and free speach is a right, so why not?
Or how about having access to lists of credit cards with expiry dates and purchasing stuff for free. Easy to do, difficult to trace and it doesn't harm individuals as they're not held accountable. Sounds reasonable, right?
Second point, and more importantly in the greater sense is that by saying that it's OK to distribute music over the net, you effectively create a segregated society where the people who have access to technology and know how to find, install and use Napster get all their music fixes for free, but people without computers or the know-how in effect end up the proverbial creek. And at that point it becomes difficult to justify that they should pay full price for a CD (or cassette) in a store and their neighbor is downloading music for free.
The main problem is that a contract exists today between the artist and the record company that states how the product should be distributed and sold, with associated expectations of selling figures and airtime on TV and radio. If the contract states that distribution over the net is allowed and describes the ifs and the hows, then feel free to share freely and by own will. Otherwise, you're screwing with the individual artists, and that's simply not kosher.
Good discussion, though. Gotta give the guy credit for that.:)
The Win9x line will, indeed, be continued with Windows Millennium (currently in beta). This is not the same as Microsoft's Millennium distributed computing project which is a completely different ballgame.
The direct quote from a MS rep follows:
'Windows MIll. will be targeted for the consumer market and continues on the 9x architecture. Reason being consumers are still more interested in compatibility than managability.'
What he's saying is that Millennium is targeted towards end-users/home users who want minimum configuration hassle and maximum plug-and-play.
The problem is that MS marketing machine has completely botched up (or maybe deliberately) the marketing of Win2k to the point where your everyday user thinks that they should upgrade to Win2k from Win98.
OK, I'll throw in a hand grenade just to see what happens. Here goes.
We had a discussion on/. the other day about wireless and how the actual OS used becomes of less importance for web-pads and similar gadgets. Well, take that to the next level by starting to look at productivity software used by corporations.
In my work I'm often faced with web-enabling legacy applications for companies such as banks and insurance companies. And if you take the web paradigm to the next level by putting it in the context of a dynamic dashboard, where a user is presented with the appropriate functionality based on user preferences and permissions, then suddenly it starts to come together really well. OK, you say, fine, but where does the PSX2 fit in? Well, it's got a browser, right? And it will have broad-band capacity, non? Fit that into an application service provider context, and hey presto, you have a serious PC contender right in your living-room.
After all, when you get down to it and look at individual users, they would most likely be just as happy to use Word2001 Web Edition (and yes, MS has ASP plans for the Office suit) from the convenience of their living room as they are to do it from the PC. When it comes down to it, all you need to do is to boot up the PSX2, load the browser and you're off.
The only real thing holding this evolution back today is that too many applications today have a very tight coupling between underlying functionality and UI, making it very difficult to make them ready for web-presentment. I do belive, though, that the era of desktop use of software is coming to a close, and there will need to be a push for applications and suites to be accessible over a network through a web-client interface. And that has a very nice fit within a broad-band ASP strategy, where a vendor offers applications to its subscribers.
Well put. There's a fine distinction there, and I apologize for missing it.
The problem might be that, at the end of the day, even though it is a very open process in terms of development, it may feel fairly closed to the end-user seeing a package for the first time when he/she installs it from a distribution. At that point, how do you reach the user and give them the ability to initiate a meaningful (to the user) conversation with the developers to express their feelings? That's really the key here.
Again, thanks for an intelligent reply. Much appreciated.
I believe it's exactly the sarcasm about users that the author was trying to illustrate. The traditional view of developers is that users suck, and rightly so. Users should simply get it, or they're too stupid to use the program anyway. Now I think that's a pretty healthy attitude for developers to have, which is why there should also be specialized UI/useability analysts/designers involved whenever you create a system or a tool for a widely distributed (skill, experience) user-base, rather than depending on the developers creating the underlying functionality.
In order to compete on the desktop - which seems to be very important to the Linux community - there has to be a completely new focus on useability and UI. That's the point of the article.
One of the basic problems is that most developers think in a very narrow scope. Most of the time developers are called in to tackle a specific problem, and think only in the context of solving that problem, rather than thinking about the rest of the operating environment. This tends to work fairly well when you deal with single tasks, but starts to really crack when you try to fit in the application withing a larger context, such as a multi-channel CRM strategy or integration of applications within a larger enterprise.
What is required is a way of working that promotes thinking in a wider scope, and taking a more technology or method pragmatic approach to development. At the end of the day it's primarily a matter of wanting to solve a business problem, and the best way to do that is to go through a full analysis of generic functional service requirements rather than individual functions.
Hmm. Did I just get off-topic here? Hope not. What I really wanted to get across is that I really see a need for developers to start thinking more in terms of enterprise-wide design rather than functional-point development.
Why would you BUY a programming tool for linux? This is a very interesting question, and a good example of what is happening to the Linux community right now. Maybe the question should be asked: Why would YOU buy a programming tool for linux? Now _that's_ interesting, and it really begins to scratch the surface of the problem: that the people you can't relate to/don't understand/don't respect are the same people currently riding straight into town to take part of this brand new thing they've heard of called the Linux/Open Source revolution (i.e., regular computer users) What does that mean? It means that the people you have all been hoping to start using Linux at a desktop level are in fact the exact same people who suddenly start asking for pretty GUIs, nice big bloated applications, suites of software, plug-and-play, no command-lines (PUH-LEASE!), and before you know it, it's like waking up one morning and realizing that the friends from University that asked to crash at your place "a couple of nights" aren't your friends anymore - obnoxious buggers, in fact - and that you're suddenly very uncomfortable with the entire situation.
And guess what? Pretty soon you'll want to move out just to get some peace and quiet.
Slashdot Mirror
Verified by VISA uses a static password. What they're talking about are codes that are only valid for a short period of time, and are displayed directly on the card (not dissimilar from key-fobs used by large companies when accessing remotely - e.g., you have to enter the code displayed on the fob).
What it does for you is requiring you to have the card in order to finish the transaction; as opposed to anything with a static password where anyone anywhere could post a transaction if they had your password.
The big change proposed here is the mechanism to display the codes directly on the card, instead of requiring a separate card reader that you'd have to carry with you.
My argument is that people who grow up (for years now) having access to free music really don't see it as stealing..And in a way, it isn't, as they've been permitted to do it for so long and in such great depth.
:)
I see two faults with this logic. First of all, just because someone has been able to get away with it for a while doesn't make it justifiable. The second you use this argument you've essentially permitted anything and everything that fulfills the criteria of:
a) being wide-spread b) being difficult to track/prevent
Examples? Let's say that technology has made it possible for individuals to access their long-distance carrier and remove all record of long-distance calls last month making it possible to call overseas without charge (and yes, I know about voice over IP but that's not the point here). Is that allowed? After all, I bought my phone, I pay my monthly regular bill, and free speach is a right, so why not?
Or how about having access to lists of credit cards with expiry dates and purchasing stuff for free. Easy to do, difficult to trace and it doesn't harm individuals as they're not held accountable. Sounds reasonable, right?
Second point, and more importantly in the greater sense is that by saying that it's OK to distribute music over the net, you effectively create a segregated society where the people who have access to technology and know how to find, install and use Napster get all their music fixes for free, but people without computers or the know-how in effect end up the proverbial creek. And at that point it becomes difficult to justify that they should pay full price for a CD (or cassette) in a store and their neighbor is downloading music for free.
The main problem is that a contract exists today between the artist and the record company that states how the product should be distributed and sold, with associated expectations of selling figures and airtime on TV and radio. If the contract states that distribution over the net is allowed and describes the ifs and the hows, then feel free to share freely and by own will. Otherwise, you're screwing with the individual artists, and that's simply not kosher.
Good discussion, though. Gotta give the guy credit for that.
The Win9x line will, indeed, be continued with Windows Millennium (currently in beta). This is not the same as Microsoft's Millennium distributed computing project which is a completely different ballgame.
The direct quote from a MS rep follows:
'Windows MIll. will be targeted for the consumer market and continues on the 9x architecture. Reason being consumers are still more interested in compatibility than managability.'
What he's saying is that Millennium is targeted towards end-users/home users who want minimum configuration hassle and maximum plug-and-play.
The problem is that MS marketing machine has completely botched up (or maybe deliberately) the marketing of Win2k to the point where your everyday user thinks that they should upgrade to Win2k from Win98.
OK, I'll throw in a hand grenade just to see what happens. Here goes.
/. the other day about wireless and how the actual OS used becomes of less importance for web-pads and similar gadgets. Well, take that to the next level by starting to look at productivity software used by corporations.
:)
We had a discussion on
In my work I'm often faced with web-enabling legacy applications for companies such as banks and insurance companies. And if you take the web paradigm to the next level by putting it in the context of a dynamic dashboard, where a user is presented with the appropriate functionality based on user preferences and permissions, then suddenly it starts to come together really well.
OK, you say, fine, but where does the PSX2 fit in?
Well, it's got a browser, right? And it will have broad-band capacity, non? Fit that into an application service provider context, and hey presto, you have a serious PC contender right in your living-room.
After all, when you get down to it and look at individual users, they would most likely be just as happy to use Word2001 Web Edition (and yes, MS has ASP plans for the Office suit) from the convenience of their living room as they are to do it from the PC. When it comes down to it, all you need to do is to boot up the PSX2, load the browser and you're off.
The only real thing holding this evolution back today is that too many applications today have a very tight coupling between underlying functionality and UI, making it very difficult to make them ready for web-presentment. I do belive, though, that the era of desktop use of software is coming to a close, and there will need to be a push for applications and suites to be accessible over a network through a web-client interface. And that has a very nice fit within a broad-band ASP strategy, where a vendor offers applications to its subscribers.
But then again, what do I know?
Well put. There's a fine distinction there, and I apologize for missing it.
The problem might be that, at the end of the day, even though it is a very open process in terms of development, it may feel fairly closed to the end-user seeing a package for the first time when he/she installs it from a distribution. At that point, how do you reach the user and give them the ability to initiate a meaningful (to the user) conversation with the developers to express their feelings? That's really the key here.
Again, thanks for an intelligent reply. Much appreciated.
Thanks, you just illustrated the point.
I believe it's exactly the sarcasm about users that the author was trying to illustrate. The traditional view of developers is that users suck, and rightly so. Users should simply get it, or they're too stupid to use the program anyway.
Now I think that's a pretty healthy attitude for developers to have, which is why there should also be specialized UI/useability analysts/designers involved whenever you create a system or a tool for a widely distributed (skill, experience) user-base, rather than depending on the developers creating the underlying functionality.
In order to compete on the desktop - which seems to be very important to the Linux community - there has to be a completely new focus on useability and UI. That's the point of the article.
One of the basic problems is that most developers think in a very narrow scope. Most of the time developers are called in to tackle a specific problem, and think only in the context of solving that problem, rather than thinking about the rest of the operating environment.
... whatchamacall ... enjoy.
This tends to work fairly well when you deal with single tasks, but starts to really crack when you try to fit in the application withing a larger context, such as a multi-channel CRM strategy or integration of applications within a larger enterprise.
What is required is a way of working that promotes thinking in a wider scope, and taking a more technology or method pragmatic approach to development. At the end of the day it's primarily a matter of wanting to solve a business problem, and the best way to do that is to go through a full analysis of generic functional service requirements rather than individual functions.
Hmm. Did I just get off-topic here? Hope not. What I really wanted to get across is that I really see a need for developers to start thinking more in terms of enterprise-wide design rather than functional-point development.
Live long and
Why would you BUY a programming tool for linux?
This is a very interesting question, and a good example of what is happening to the Linux community right now.
Maybe the question should be asked: Why would YOU buy a programming tool for linux?
Now _that's_ interesting, and it really begins to scratch the surface of the problem: that the people you can't relate to/don't understand/don't respect are the same people currently riding straight into town to take part of this brand new thing they've heard of called the Linux/Open Source revolution (i.e., regular computer users) What does that mean? It means that the people you have all been hoping to start using Linux at a desktop level are in fact the exact same people who suddenly start asking for pretty GUIs, nice big bloated applications, suites of software, plug-and-play, no command-lines (PUH-LEASE!), and before you know it, it's like waking up one morning and realizing that the friends from University that asked to crash at your place "a couple of nights" aren't your friends anymore - obnoxious buggers, in fact - and that you're suddenly very uncomfortable with the entire situation.
And guess what? Pretty soon you'll want to move out just to get some peace and quiet.
Just my take on it, anyway.
/ Mikas