For the most part, I'd have to agree with you. At $STARTUP[1] where I worked, initially we sat on the floors to have meetings because there wasn't any furniture other than our computer desks and the server racks.
Granted, $STARTUP[1] isn't around anymore, but I doubt that having a perfectly coordinated set of teak furniture would have made them more successful.
The market has tightened significantly and whether people like it or not, you're going to have to work a lot harder in this environment than you have ever done in your life.
Apparently this guy has never worked at a dot.com startup. I've worked for two, and worked my butt off at both, rarely working less than 80+ hours/week. The reason I worked so hard wasn't because of the paycheck, the stock options or some suit/PHB telling me to, it was because I was personally invested in seeing the companies and their products/services succeed. This is not to say that people outside of the dot.coms don't also work hard -- they do. It's just simplistic (and inaccurate) to portray dot.commies as slackers.
The notion that a suit looks more professional or mature is also crap. First of all, I know a lot of suits who are neither professional nor mature (and utterly incapable of communication). And secondly, I seem to remember a time not too long ago when women and people of color were considered to be less "professional" than white men, and thus unworthy of higher-ranking positions. Please tell me we're not headed back in that direction!
Interesting ideas. However, you'd need to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax rules as well for this to work.
When you exercise (buy) incentive stock options, you incur a tax based on the value of the stock at the time you exercise them. Unfortunately, the amount of this tax does not change, even if the value of the stock changes.
As an analogy, suppose you buy a car for $1000, but the fair-market value for that car is $11000 at that time. If cars were taxed the same way that incentive stock options are taxed, you would then owe tax on the difference between the value and the price at which you bought it. For this example, let's assume the tax is 30%, so you'd owe 30% tax on the difference ($10000), or $3000 in taxes.
Now, let's suppose that by the end of the year, the fair-market value for the car has changed to $1. You would still owe $3000 in tax on that car. Strange but true: you'd owe $3000 in tax on a car worth $1 for which you paid $1000.
This is the Alternative Minimum Tax at work.
As far as I know, the only way to avoid this Alternative Minimum Tax, is to SELL the stock (or, in this example, the car) before the end of the tax year in which you bought it. If you do sell before the end of the tax year, then any profit you make is taxed as income. If you don't sell before the end of the year, then it's too late -- you owe the tax even if you sell it later.
This is what happened to stocks in the year 2000. Everyone who had exercised their options were forced to sell their stock to avoid being stuck with an impossible tax burden. I imagine that this is one big reason why the market crashed.
How do I know this? Because I'm one of the idiots who did NOT sell his stock by the end of the tax year (I didn't understand the AMT as well as I do now, and didn't believe that the tax law could be so broken). As a result, I now owe over $140000 in tax for stock that is worth about $2000. As a result, I will be in debt and paying every penny I earn to the IRS for the next 10 years. And when I sell the stock, I'll get taxed on it again. Sad but true.
So, I like the idea of the BFT (Big Fat Tax) on people who dump their shares early; but you'd have to repeal/fix the Alternative Minimum Tax as well so that people are not forced to dump their shares, and people like me are not sent to the poorhouse.
Hmmm... I didn't find anything specific about prohibiting the GPL, but the New Democrats' "E-Genda 2002" sounds in line with the info posted at NewsForge. Of course, that could just be a smear campaign by their opponents.
Relevent links (Apologies in advance for the karma whoring:-)
I think the main concern is that there is no due process and no means for disclosure built into the Act. Among other things, this makes it impossible to detect any misuse or abuse of the process.
It may be hard to imagine what kind of misuse/abuse there could be from gathering library lending habits. But, if we don't protect our rights now, then we leave ourselves open for all the abuses that we haven't thought of.
To an extent, this is like trying to protect your computer system from viruses: You don't just protect yourself from the viruses that you know about; instead, you set up processes and standards to protect yourself from the ones that you don't know about as well (that's why you don't open every e-mail attachment you get and expect your anti-virus software to cope with the fallout).
Just my 55 pesos.
Lister: 'Knowledge is Power' -- who said that? Rimmer: I don't know.
Greetings, friend. Do you wish to look as happy as me? Well, you've got the power inside you right now. So use it. And send one dollar to Happy Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. Don't delay! Eternal happiness is just a dollar away. YOU HAVE THE POWER!
Well put -- I'd mod you up, but I don't have any points.:-)
Anyway, it would seem that Katz has never read Preacher, Poison Elves or Faust (or anything by the Vigil brothers, for that matter). Or Johnny the Homocidal Maniac, or the Blood Syndicate, or Strangers in Paradise, or The Crow, or Finder, or even Bone. And, hello, Alan Moore isn't dead yet... is he?
Plus, don't forget that Tank Girl, Ghost World, From Hell and Men In Black were all movies based on comic books.
If Katz finds today's comics "bland as network TV" and lacking in free-speech, then he's not looking on the right shelves at his local comic shop.
For me, the issue isn't that MS packages their OS with these extra utilities; it's that the OS can't run without them (or, some of them, anyway).
As a current example, at $WORK we're running into a problem where PCs "up"graded to Windows 2000 (Service Pack 2) are having problems running MS Access 2000 applications which run fine on Windows NT.
As it turns out, this is due to a bug in the MS Jet Database Engine DLL which is "up"dated by Win2K.
Why should a change in the operating system change the DATABASE ENGINE for MS Access? This seems like the worst kind of spaghetti code.
<RANT> And, of course, M$ resolution to this bug is to "contact Microsoft Product Support Services to obtain the fix. For a complete list of Microsoft Product Support Services phone numbers and information on support costs...". The fix isn't even available for free download! *#@%^#*&#&@!!! </RANT>
Using the analogy of a car that someone else mentioned in response to another article, this is like finding that changing the tires on your car turned your stereo into an 8-track.
This may be off-topic, but I notice that there are a lot of comments in this discussion that question the value of slamming Mundie's statements.
While denouncing Microsoft-spawned FUD in/. may be like preaching to the converted, there is still value in doing so, IMHO.
The goal of FUD (Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt) is to spin information, or create disinformation, to influence people who don't know better. Thus, it is important that people who *do* know better to not let FUD become fact in the minds of the masses. And discussing it, even in a forum like slashdot, helps us be better FUD fighters, I think.
Speaking for myself, reading through discussions like this lets me know that I'm not the only one who thinks that something is FUD. It can also provide insight and information that I didn't have already. In turn, these things help me to be more confident and better informed when discussing the issue with people who believe the FUD.
And sites like slashdot are good places for these discussions because there are a lot of intelligent people ready to call bulls**t on anyone who tries to fight FUD with more FUD.
So, please, keep on posting, and keep on arguing. Borrowing a slogan used in the fight against AIDS, "Silence is Deadly."
But then, that's just my opinion... or maybe it's all part of an elaborate scheme to help me rule the universe!:-)
I used to argue that MS hasn't done anything any other company hasn't done or wanted to do.
I've heard this argument a lot and while I don't disagree, I'd also argue that other companies wanting/doing the same thing doesn't make it right. This is reminiscent of the common conversation between a parent and his/her child:
Parent: why did you do that?
Child: but $FRIEND did it!
Parent: if $FRIEND jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff too?
I find it amusing and discouraging that these simple lessons that we try so hard to instill in our children are completely ignored or forgotten in the business world.
If Microsoft truly means what they say, and that they really are going to try to develop products and services that are "available, reliable, and secure", then this is a Good Thing. But, in order for them to achieve "Trustworthy Computing" (something that various other people already do, IMHO), it seems to me that Microsoft needs to do two things:
*) develop trustworthy products and services
*) become a trustworthy company
And that will be no easy task. I agree that security in their products is something that they need to improve, but I think becoming trustworthy will require much more than that. If I were to describe all of the things that I think Microsoft needs to do to accomplish these things, I'd be here all day. So, I'll describe only a few examples not related to security.
1) Improve the quality of their products. In my current job, I have the singular pleasure of developing applications in MS Access 2000. Unfortunately, the documentation provided with the software is poorly indexed, incomplete and (in some cases) inaccurate. For example, in one place in the documentation, it claims that the maximum number of levels of nested forms allowed is 3. Elsewhere it claims the limit is 10. Both are wrong. It's difficult to trust software when its own documentation is incorrect. This doesn't mean that their products have to be perfect. But right now, it often feels like they're not even trying.
2) Abandon the new licensing strategy, which essentially dictates when companies need to upgrade their software. Having to go through a massive upgrade because of licensing is no different than having to go through a massive upgrade because of a bug or security vulnerability. The end result is the same, and I do not consider such software to be "available" or "reliable".
3) Adopt more ethical business practices. A number of the comments posted here speculate on what Microsoft true motives are. Given MS's history of Machiavellian business practices, it's not surprising that people don't believe Microsoft, even if they are telling the truth. And I'm one of those people. I tend to believe the adage that you can't build a straight house with crooked boards. So, if Microsoft really wants to promote trustworthy computing, then they must become a trustworthy company first.
Some folk have noted that the General Public's view of MS is much different than the average/.er, and possibly the average techie in general. However, I don't believe that this changes what MS needs to do to be trustworthy. On the other hand, if MS is only interested in looking trustworthy (rather than being trustworthy), then that's a different story.
Anyway, if MS is serious about this new directive, then good for them (and it's about time!). But I'll believe it when I see it (and maybe not even then).
The problem with transparency is that it creates another dichotomy of the Haves and Have-Nots -- those who have privacy and those who don't. As others have mentioned, there will be groups who can reasonably argue for privacy in the interest of national security.
Also, transparency would benefit only certain people/groups. For example, knowing or not knowing CowboyNeal's buying habits doesn't benefit me in the least (despite Brin's assertion to the contrary); but knowing *would* benefit corporations.
More importantly, transparency gives a huge advantage to the established power structure. For example, it would be much easier for a large, established corporation to squash a small start-up company if the start-up were not able to keep its developments secret. That's why we have Non-Disclosure Agreements.
And even if I agreed with Brin that transparency were a good thing, it seems to me that we *must* have the accountability that he describes FIRST. As other people have noted, *that* has been a problem all along.
Anyway, I do agree with Brin that we can have both security and freedom/privacy. And I agree that the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. I just don't think that either of these things means "constant surveillance."
At my first.com job, we were developing software that would, among other things, collect and store demographic info from its users (whatever the users entered in certain demographic fields in the software options/properties, IIRC).
However, our assertion was that the data we collected could not be used to trace use of the software back to an individual. That is, we were collecting data anonymously for its aggregate value, only.
In order to make this claim, we planned to subject ourselves to an audit of our security by some third-party company who, supposedly, was good and well-known for this kind of audit.
The audit was supposed to verify that the data was stored in such a way as to make it impossible to trace back to the end user, that the security of our data from external attack and also to ensure that our internal policies were adequate (e.g., that only appropriate employees had access to the data and/or the systems that stored that data, that only certain employees had the ability to grant other employees access, that strict policies were in place regarding the change of such priviledges, etc.).
In light of this, I often wonder when companies claim "we're only using personal information for $X" or "we're doing this to ensure the privacy of our customers"
*) do they really need to collect the personal info to do $X?
*) have they gone through an audit to verify that this private info is secure?
*) if not, why not?
Actually, because Me.jaded = True, I think I know the answers to these questions, but it still doesn't stop me from wondering.
Anyway, I'm glad Comcast will stop collecting this info, but it sounds like someone saying "I'm going to stop hitting you now. Aren't I wonderful?"
Granted, Lotus Notes is not strictly an OS and has its own limitations, but the idea of encryption, replication and assymmetrical trust relationships is something that Notes can do already.
Slashdot Mirror
For the most part, I'd have to agree with you. At $STARTUP[1] where I worked, initially we sat on the floors to have meetings because there wasn't any furniture other than our computer desks and the server racks.
Granted, $STARTUP[1] isn't around anymore, but I doubt that having a perfectly coordinated set of teak furniture would have made them more successful.
The market has tightened significantly and whether people like it or not, you're going to have to work a lot harder in this environment than you have ever done in your life.
Apparently this guy has never worked at a dot.com startup. I've worked for two, and worked my butt off at both, rarely working less than 80+ hours/week. The reason I worked so hard wasn't because of the paycheck, the stock options or some suit/PHB telling me to, it was because I was personally invested in seeing the companies and their products/services succeed. This is not to say that people outside of the dot.coms don't also work hard -- they do. It's just simplistic (and inaccurate) to portray dot.commies as slackers.
The notion that a suit looks more professional or mature is also crap. First of all, I know a lot of suits who are neither professional nor mature (and utterly incapable of communication). And secondly, I seem to remember a time not too long ago when women and people of color were considered to be less "professional" than white men, and thus unworthy of higher-ranking positions. Please tell me we're not headed back in that direction!
Reminds me of $STARTUP[1] where I worked: the Sales & Marketing department had more VPs than "line-staff".
s/$STARTUP[1]//g;
Interesting ideas. However, you'd need to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax rules as well for this to work.
When you exercise (buy) incentive stock options, you incur a tax based on the value of the stock at the time you exercise them. Unfortunately, the amount of this tax does not change, even if the value of the stock changes.
As an analogy, suppose you buy a car for $1000, but the fair-market value for that car is $11000 at that time. If cars were taxed the same way that incentive stock options are taxed, you would then owe tax on the difference between the value and the price at which you bought it. For this example, let's assume the tax is 30%, so you'd owe 30% tax on the difference ($10000), or $3000 in taxes.
Now, let's suppose that by the end of the year, the fair-market value for the car has changed to $1. You would still owe $3000 in tax on that car. Strange but true: you'd owe $3000 in tax on a car worth $1 for which you paid $1000.
This is the Alternative Minimum Tax at work.
As far as I know, the only way to avoid this Alternative Minimum Tax, is to SELL the stock (or, in this example, the car) before the end of the tax year in which you bought it. If you do sell before the end of the tax year, then any profit you make is taxed as income. If you don't sell before the end of the year, then it's too late -- you owe the tax even if you sell it later.
This is what happened to stocks in the year 2000. Everyone who had exercised their options were forced to sell their stock to avoid being stuck with an impossible tax burden. I imagine that this is one big reason why the market crashed.
How do I know this? Because I'm one of the idiots who did NOT sell his stock by the end of the tax year (I didn't understand the AMT as well as I do now, and didn't believe that the tax law could be so broken). As a result, I now owe over $140000 in tax for stock that is worth about $2000. As a result, I will be in debt and paying every penny I earn to the IRS for the next 10 years. And when I sell the stock, I'll get taxed on it again. Sad but true.
So, I like the idea of the BFT (Big Fat Tax) on people who dump their shares early; but you'd have to repeal/fix the Alternative Minimum Tax as well so that people are not forced to dump their shares, and people like me are not sent to the poorhouse.
-- D
Hmmm... I didn't find anything specific about prohibiting the GPL, but the New Democrats' "E-Genda 2002" sounds in line with the info posted at NewsForge. Of course, that could just be a smear campaign by their opponents.
:-)
Relevent links (Apologies in advance for the karma whoring
Adam Smith's Statement on Technology and the New Economy
Press Release for "E-Genda 2002"
New Democrats E-Genda 2002 (full text)
Lister: "Knowledge is Power" -- who said that?
Rimmer: I don't know
I think the main concern is that there is no due process and no means for disclosure built into the Act. Among other things, this makes it impossible to detect any misuse or abuse of the process.
It may be hard to imagine what kind of misuse/abuse there could be from gathering library lending habits. But, if we don't protect our rights now, then we leave ourselves open for all the abuses that we haven't thought of.
To an extent, this is like trying to protect your computer system from viruses: You don't just protect yourself from the viruses that you know about; instead, you set up processes and standards to protect yourself from the ones that you don't know about as well (that's why you don't open every e-mail attachment you get and expect your anti-virus software to cope with the fallout).
Just my 55 pesos.
Lister: 'Knowledge is Power' -- who said that?
Rimmer: I don't know.
and, of course, there's always
Greetings, friend. Do you wish to look as happy as me? Well, you've got the power inside you right now. So use it. And send one dollar to Happy Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. Don't delay! Eternal happiness is just a dollar away.
YOU HAVE THE POWER!
and Carol Cleveland!
Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
not with a bang but a whimper.
-- D
Interesting development:
/. but got shot down. It's my rejection and I'll grouse if I want to! :-P
msnbc.com is reporting an Associated Press story that Microsoft will stop supporting Java in Windows by 2004..
-- D.
I tried to submit this article as a story to
We have this 3-5 pound computer sitting in our heads that is so powerful that we can't emulate it with any success.
:-)
And just look at what most people do with theirs. I can see the fine print now: Luser, PHB and Evil modes installed by default.
-- D
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
Well put -- I'd mod you up, but I don't have any points. :-)
Anyway, it would seem that Katz has never read Preacher, Poison Elves or Faust (or anything by the Vigil brothers, for that matter). Or Johnny the Homocidal Maniac, or the Blood Syndicate, or Strangers in Paradise, or The Crow, or Finder, or even Bone. And, hello, Alan Moore isn't dead yet... is he?
Plus, don't forget that Tank Girl, Ghost World, From Hell and Men In Black were all movies based on comic books.
If Katz finds today's comics "bland as network TV" and lacking in free-speech, then he's not looking on the right shelves at his local comic shop.
-- D
Please post a spoiler warning if you're going to give away the plot of Episode 7! :-)
Right -- my point exactly. My rant was a rhetorical question. :-)
But, clearly, it isn't just IE that is integrated into the Windows OS. Other MS applications are as well (or, vice versa).
-- D.
For me, the issue isn't that MS packages their OS with these extra utilities; it's that the OS can't run without them (or, some of them, anyway).
As a current example, at $WORK we're running into a problem where PCs "up"graded to Windows 2000 (Service Pack 2) are having problems running MS Access 2000 applications which run fine on Windows NT.
As it turns out, this is due to a bug in the MS Jet Database Engine DLL which is "up"dated by Win2K.
Why should a change in the operating system change the DATABASE ENGINE for MS Access? This seems like the worst kind of spaghetti code.
<RANT>
And, of course, M$ resolution to this bug is to "contact Microsoft Product Support Services to obtain the fix. For a complete list of Microsoft Product Support Services phone numbers and information on support costs...". The fix isn't even available for free download! *#@%^#*&#&@!!!
</RANT>
Using the analogy of a car that someone else mentioned in response to another article, this is like finding that changing the tires on your car turned your stereo into an 8-track.
Grrr...
-- D.
This may be off-topic, but I notice that there are a lot of comments in this discussion that question the value of slamming Mundie's statements.
/. may be like preaching to the converted, there is still value in doing so, IMHO.
:-)
While denouncing Microsoft-spawned FUD in
The goal of FUD (Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt) is to spin information, or create disinformation, to influence people who don't know better. Thus, it is important that people who *do* know better to not let FUD become fact in the minds of the masses. And discussing it, even in a forum like slashdot, helps us be better FUD fighters, I think.
Speaking for myself, reading through discussions like this lets me know that I'm not the only one who thinks that something is FUD. It can also provide insight and information that I didn't have already. In turn, these things help me to be more confident and better informed when discussing the issue with people who believe the FUD.
And sites like slashdot are good places for these discussions because there are a lot of intelligent people ready to call bulls**t on anyone who tries to fight FUD with more FUD.
So, please, keep on posting, and keep on arguing. Borrowing a slogan used in the fight against AIDS, "Silence is Deadly."
But then, that's just my opinion... or maybe it's all part of an elaborate scheme to help me rule the universe!
-- D.
"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!" Dr. Lizardo
Hmmm... I guess I could have mentioned that I was JOKING. I figured the Mira Sorvino reference would have made that clear.
:-)
Oh well -- guess it just means I have a different sense of humor (and it tickles me to think you thought I was serious!).
-- D.
Didn't we see this movie already?
Now, maybe if we could just release massive numbers of mutant sterilized Mira Sorvinos into the population...
--D
That's what they all say -- they all say "D'oh". -- Chief Wiggum
I used to argue that MS hasn't done anything any other company hasn't done or wanted to do.
I've heard this argument a lot and while I don't disagree, I'd also argue that other companies wanting/doing the same thing doesn't make it right. This is reminiscent of the common conversation between a parent and his/her child:
Parent: why did you do that?
Child: but $FRIEND did it!
Parent: if $FRIEND jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff too?
I find it amusing and discouraging that these simple lessons that we try so hard to instill in our children are completely ignored or forgotten in the business world.
Who is responsible for the disintegration of traditional family values), now?
-- D
If Microsoft truly means what they say, and that they really are going to try to develop products and services that are "available, reliable, and secure", then this is a Good Thing. But, in order for them to achieve "Trustworthy Computing" (something that various other people already do, IMHO), it seems to me that Microsoft needs to do two things:
/.er, and possibly the average techie in general. However, I don't believe that this changes what MS needs to do to be trustworthy. On the other hand, if MS is only interested in looking trustworthy (rather than being trustworthy), then that's a different story.
*) develop trustworthy products and services
*) become a trustworthy company
And that will be no easy task. I agree that security in their products is something that they need to improve, but I think becoming trustworthy will require much more than that. If I were to describe all of the things that I think Microsoft needs to do to accomplish these things, I'd be here all day. So, I'll describe only a few examples not related to security.
1) Improve the quality of their products. In my current job, I have the singular pleasure of developing applications in MS Access 2000. Unfortunately, the documentation provided with the software is poorly indexed, incomplete and (in some cases) inaccurate. For example, in one place in the documentation, it claims that the maximum number of levels of nested forms allowed is 3. Elsewhere it claims the limit is 10. Both are wrong. It's difficult to trust software when its own documentation is incorrect. This doesn't mean that their products have to be perfect. But right now, it often feels like they're not even trying.
2) Abandon the new licensing strategy, which essentially dictates when companies need to upgrade their software. Having to go through a massive upgrade because of licensing is no different than having to go through a massive upgrade because of a bug or security vulnerability. The end result is the same, and I do not consider such software to be "available" or "reliable".
3) Adopt more ethical business practices. A number of the comments posted here speculate on what Microsoft true motives are. Given MS's history of Machiavellian business practices, it's not surprising that people don't believe Microsoft, even if they are telling the truth. And I'm one of those people. I tend to believe the adage that you can't build a straight house with crooked boards. So, if Microsoft really wants to promote trustworthy computing, then they must become a trustworthy company first.
Some folk have noted that the General Public's view of MS is much different than the average
Anyway, if MS is serious about this new directive, then good for them (and it's about time!). But I'll believe it when I see it (and maybe not even then).
</soapbox>
-- D
The problem with transparency is that it creates another dichotomy of the Haves and Have-Nots -- those who have privacy and those who don't. As others have mentioned, there will be groups who can reasonably argue for privacy in the interest of national security.
Also, transparency would benefit only certain people/groups. For example, knowing or not knowing CowboyNeal's buying habits doesn't benefit me in the least (despite Brin's assertion to the contrary); but knowing *would* benefit corporations.
More importantly, transparency gives a huge advantage to the established power structure. For example, it would be much easier for a large, established corporation to squash a small start-up company if the start-up were not able to keep its developments secret. That's why we have Non-Disclosure Agreements.
And even if I agreed with Brin that transparency were a good thing, it seems to me that we *must* have the accountability that he describes FIRST. As other people have noted, *that* has been a problem all along.
Anyway, I do agree with Brin that we can have both security and freedom/privacy. And I agree that the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. I just don't think that either of these things means "constant surveillance."
-- D
If you've ever ordered from Amazon, this might concern you.
Damn. I *knew* I shouldn't have bought that Britney Spears biography!
No really, I just bought it for the articles...
-- D
Hmmm... this may be off-topic, but...
.com job, we were developing software that would, among other things, collect and store demographic info from its users (whatever the users entered in certain demographic fields in the software options/properties, IIRC).
At my first
However, our assertion was that the data we collected could not be used to trace use of the software back to an individual. That is, we were collecting data anonymously for its aggregate value, only.
In order to make this claim, we planned to subject ourselves to an audit of our security by some third-party company who, supposedly, was good and well-known for this kind of audit.
The audit was supposed to verify that the data was stored in such a way as to make it impossible to trace back to the end user, that the security of our data from external attack and also to ensure that our internal policies were adequate (e.g., that only appropriate employees had access to the data and/or the systems that stored that data, that only certain employees had the ability to grant other employees access, that strict policies were in place regarding the change of such priviledges, etc.).
In light of this, I often wonder when companies claim "we're only using personal information for $X" or "we're doing this to ensure the privacy of our customers"
*) do they really need to collect the personal info to do $X?
*) have they gone through an audit to verify that this private info is secure?
*) if not, why not?
Actually, because Me.jaded = True, I think I know the answers to these questions, but it still doesn't stop me from wondering.
Anyway, I'm glad Comcast will stop collecting this info, but it sounds like someone saying "I'm going to stop hitting you now. Aren't I wonderful?"
-- D.
Countdown to Snow Crash!
;-)
Right now this is Just Another Geeky Toy, but it doesn't seem like it's that far of a leap from the numerous PDAs that people love to carry around.
Personally, I'm waiting for x-ray goggles!
-- D
(regarding Farsite)
Granted, Lotus Notes is not strictly an OS and has its own limitations, but the idea of encryption, replication and assymmetrical trust relationships is something that Notes can do already.
-- D.