I completely agree, this is insane. I blogged about a solution ( http://richkilmer.blogs.com/ ) that would not compromise privacy and yet use biometric data. The solution is:
Build a mag card that holds two things:
Biometric 'signature' of a person's fingerprint stored as a small data file
Digital signature w/certificate of the biometric signature generated by a 'signature authority' with a valid certificate chain.
That's it. What this would do is create a card that can be self-authenticated without any network access. You have a terminal that takes a fingerprint, produces a signature, then compares it to the one on the card. The digital signature would be validated against the stored biometric data to ensure it has not changed since the authority 'signed' it. This terminal could be completely disconnected from any network and still produce a valid result. No log would have to be generated. No loss of privacy would result. If someone had the card it would be useless without your finger to validate it with.
We have built an extremely robust distributed testing framework for a Java-based multi-agent system completely implemented in Ruby (see Cougaar for more on the project and the ACME testing framework). We were told on starting this project (at DARPA) that it would never work...I really like proving people wrong;-) My company is using its Ruby expertise as a differentiator in the market and getting very good reception.
Actually, I read this after I did the upgrade and was looking for a solution. But, you see, I have hundreds of applications installed. The only application that did this was Macromedia.
I read the upgrade documentation for Panther, but I did not check with every installed application's vendor to see whether and how I should upgrade (it IS an upgrade after all).
To put the burden on the user to do this is just wrong, which is why I believe technologies that lock applications to specific hardware/OS environments like 'activation' just blow. But, I am not looking for sympathy, just relaying an experience.
We work on a DARPA project that runs a distrubuted multiagent system which is written in Java across a couple hundred dual-Xeon machines running Linux. The control mechanism is a Ruby application framework that uses Jabber for control and stressing of the multiagent application.
Not only is the project using open source as the infrastructure, but contributing to the open source community with projects like Cougaar and PMD.
We use Linux primarily because of the simplification of administration and maintanence.
I mounted a 3U with a long enclosure in an unfinished part of my basement. Just dropped 4 10" bolts through the 2x4s in between the floors and put 2 metal (1/8"x1.5"x20") strips across that the bolts go through. Then slid the box on top of the metal strips, and I have a box I never have to look at. Just ran power and an ethernet cable to it and X or SSH to it when I need it (I also installed VNC from AT&T labs to take over the local screen if needed).
A funny thing that happened though was the fans in the unit (there are 8) were so damned loud we could hear them through the floor on the main level of our house. I searched the net and found some (virtually) silent fans to replace them with, and my wife's a whole lot happier.
I think we ought to have a broader view of instant messaging as internet infrastructure. Instead of simply looking at it as person-to-person communcations, we should look at it as a system-to-system or person-to-system enabler.
Imagine, I want to access info off of my PC at work from home. I had an IM based service on my PC at work and an IM based client that built queries to the IM service. The client "system" communicates with the service "system" to get the requested info (such as my schedule for the day) all via IM.
Realize that what IM does is allow two "hosts" to communicate anywhere on the net (firewalls be damned). This could be a new standard communications medium for n number of new services. We should fight that the CLIENT API gets standardized (or at least opened). This may not happen, but at least the servers could interoperate and you could use an "open" source system like Jabber for the development of the new innovative services.
Until a better file/data system is divised, the UI will not improve.
We don't need to necessarily get rid of the file/data system, but build a layer on top of it that abstracts people from having to directly deal with it. In our research we realized that what you need is an information space that allows you to store the meta-data about the objects of the real world and/or the objects in the digital world. That information space would allow you to express four basic ideas:
Ontology - A categorized object hierarchy that groups like things together (like people vs. meetings vs. songs vs. telephones). These objects should be standardized to allow for collaboration (a song to you is a song to me...format is a techie thing) BTW: This is the hardest thing to get right.
Semantics - The ability to represent how objects are related (linked) to each other. Some of the more common links should be standardized to allow for communications of the linked objects in context.
Morphology - The ability to represent meta-structures such as hierarchy/folders, topics of like things (automatically grouped by patterns), searches, etc.
Behavior - What it means to look through an object to what it represents.
From experience I can say that an environment that provides for these expressions enables to you build extremely intuitive user experiences. I can also say that searching in a meta-data enabled user interface becomes a key UI feature...much more than todays searching features because you can specify ontology in the search (ie. searching for britney as a person vs. a song yeilds a result that makes sense to people).
Why don't people see that there is an alternative view here.
Since my machine is connected to the Internet, it can function as a client and a server. Napster/Gnutella show us this. If I had bandwidth into my home, I could use that bandwidth to get back to my home resources. I look toward the time when some smart hardware company develops the Personal Data Server. You could buy two and they could back up to each other...to offer redundancy (or online to an (encrypted) vault in case of disaster). You could also buy a Processing Server. Imagine...just RAM and CPU...you could get several, stack them up, and serve your family. This hardware will get CHEAPER, we should remember that.
Remember, no ASP in the world will guarantee you 800MHz of dedicated CPU and 25GB of dedicated storage...not for a price you can afford.
I, for one, want my PDA and WAP phone to browse my personal computing "servers", not someone else's. I want control of my information, and when I interact with a vendor, I will disclose it at my discretion.
I believe in pervasive computing, just not the "centralized" model of it. I was at a conference when Bob Lucky (former Exec. Director of Bell Labs) spoke. He talked about when they made the phone networks, they made the end user devices dumb, and the network "smart (and complex). He said if he could do it all over again, He'd do it the other way around. I agree.
Slashdot Mirror
Build a mag card that holds two things:
That's it. What this would do is create a card that can be self-authenticated without any network access. You have a terminal that takes a fingerprint, produces a signature, then compares it to the one on the card. The digital signature would be validated against the stored biometric data to ensure it has not changed since the authority 'signed' it. This terminal could be completely disconnected from any network and still produce a valid result. No log would have to be generated. No loss of privacy would result. If someone had the card it would be useless without your finger to validate it with.
We have built an extremely robust distributed testing framework for a Java-based multi-agent system completely implemented in Ruby (see Cougaar for more on the project and the ACME testing framework). We were told on starting this project (at DARPA) that it would never work...I really like proving people wrong ;-) My company is using its Ruby expertise as a differentiator in the market and getting very good reception.
It comes from the pick and axe on the front cover of the book :-)
Actually, I read this after I did the upgrade and was looking for a solution. But, you see, I have hundreds of applications installed. The only application that did this was Macromedia.
I read the upgrade documentation for Panther, but I did not check with every installed application's vendor to see whether and how I should upgrade (it IS an upgrade after all).
To put the burden on the user to do this is just wrong, which is why I believe technologies that lock applications to specific hardware/OS environments like 'activation' just blow. But, I am not looking for sympathy, just relaying an experience.
We work on a DARPA project that runs a distrubuted multiagent system which is written in Java across a couple hundred dual-Xeon machines running Linux. The control mechanism is a Ruby application framework that uses Jabber for control and stressing of the multiagent application.
Not only is the project using open source as the infrastructure, but contributing to the open source community with projects like Cougaar and PMD.
We use Linux primarily because of the simplification of administration and maintanence.
I mounted a 3U with a long enclosure in an unfinished part of my basement. Just dropped 4 10" bolts through the 2x4s in between the floors and put 2 metal (1/8"x1.5"x20") strips across that the bolts go through. Then slid the box on top of the metal strips, and I have a box I never have to look at. Just ran power and an ethernet cable to it and X or SSH to it when I need it (I also installed VNC from AT&T labs to take over the local screen if needed).
A funny thing that happened though was the fans in the unit (there are 8) were so damned loud we could hear them through the floor on the main level of our house. I searched the net and found some (virtually) silent fans to replace them with, and my wife's a whole lot happier.
I think we ought to have a broader view of instant messaging as internet infrastructure. Instead of simply looking at it as person-to-person communcations, we should look at it as a system-to-system or person-to-system enabler.
Imagine, I want to access info off of my PC at work from home. I had an IM based service on my PC at work and an IM based client that built queries to the IM service. The client "system" communicates with the service "system" to get the requested info (such as my schedule for the day) all via IM.
Realize that what IM does is allow two "hosts" to communicate anywhere on the net (firewalls be damned). This could be a new standard communications medium for n number of new services. We should fight that the CLIENT API gets standardized (or at least opened). This may not happen, but at least the servers could interoperate and you could use an "open" source system like Jabber for the development of the new innovative services.
Until a better file/data system is divised, the UI will not improve.
We don't need to necessarily get rid of the file/data system, but build a layer on top of it that abstracts people from having to directly deal with it. In our research we realized that what you need is an information space that allows you to store the meta-data about the objects of the real world and/or the objects in the digital world. That information space would allow you to express four basic ideas:
Ontology - A categorized object hierarchy that groups like things together (like people vs. meetings vs. songs vs. telephones). These objects should be standardized to allow for collaboration (a song to you is a song to me...format is a techie thing) BTW: This is the hardest thing to get right.
Semantics - The ability to represent how objects are related (linked) to each other. Some of the more common links should be standardized to allow for communications of the linked objects in context.
Morphology - The ability to represent meta-structures such as hierarchy/folders, topics of like things (automatically grouped by patterns), searches, etc.
Behavior - What it means to look through an object to what it represents.
From experience I can say that an environment that provides for these expressions enables to you build extremely intuitive user experiences. I can also say that searching in a meta-data enabled user interface becomes a key UI feature...much more than todays searching features because you can specify ontology in the search (ie. searching for britney as a person vs. a song yeilds a result that makes sense to people).
Why don't people see that there is an alternative view here.
Since my machine is connected to the Internet, it can function as a client and a server. Napster/Gnutella show us this. If I had bandwidth into my home, I could use that bandwidth to get back to my home resources. I look toward the time when some smart hardware company develops the Personal Data Server. You could buy two and they could back up to each other...to offer redundancy (or online to an (encrypted) vault in case of disaster). You could also buy a Processing Server. Imagine...just RAM and CPU...you could get several, stack them up, and serve your family. This hardware will get CHEAPER, we should remember that.
Remember, no ASP in the world will guarantee you 800MHz of dedicated CPU and 25GB of dedicated storage...not for a price you can afford.
I, for one, want my PDA and WAP phone to browse my personal computing "servers", not someone else's. I want control of my information, and when I interact with a vendor, I will disclose it at my discretion.
I believe in pervasive computing, just not the "centralized" model of it. I was at a conference when Bob Lucky (former Exec. Director of Bell Labs) spoke. He talked about when they made the phone networks, they made the end user devices dumb, and the network "smart (and complex). He said if he could do it all over again, He'd do it the other way around. I agree.