I ran SETI@home for a while, and wondered what the incremental cost was to me as a user. Yes the equipment was paid for and idle. And I assume it used a few more watts of electricity (a few more bucks a year). But the bigger costs are probably hidden, and fall into two areas:
(1) POOR SOFTWARE DESIGN. Can cause memory leaks, security issues, need to re-boot more often etc. Solution: A web site offering a range of projects I could "donate" my cycles to, with all the projects running as sub-clients under a well tested (stable, reliable, trusted) supervisory client which I would install on my machine. This would be a great open-source project.
(2) HARDWARE RELIABILITY. Under normal use (w/o a distributed application running) my processor probably goes through thermal cycles as its workload changes. I wonder if a constant processor workload improves processor life-to-failure (by stabilizing processor temperature and minimizing expansion/contraction). If so, then running distributed software would have a very tangible benefit to users.
Impressionist painters tried to ignore their mental processing of images, and to just see the world as blotches of color. They would then try to paint the colors, without regard to the underlying objects they represented. I have occasionally tried this kind of visualization, and it was not easy. It required a completely different mindset, and gave a very unusual view of the world.
It made me realize how much we take for granted the amount of post-processing our brain does to extract information from our eyeballs' visual color signals.
Scientists, Engineers, Techncal People and other Nerds love to have a model for most things. So here's my model for political views (not parties, thought the equivalent named parties roughly fall in line)
Republican: Socially Conservative, Economically Conservative
Democrat: Socially Liberal, Economically Liberal
Libertarian: Socailly Liberal, Economically Conservative
Populist: Socially Consertative, Economically Liberal
Even though most people's views fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum (in all four quadrants), the political process is dominated by those representing the extreme edges of diagonally opposite views (first two groups). So instead of a a debate on the issues and a search for consensus, we seem to have personality contest and a tug-of-war.
Unfortunately neither a personality contest nor a tug-of war will be won by Mr./Ms. Deformed Carbonrod.
It appears that RIAA is also starting to sue other Napster lookalikes (i.e. Scour). These lawsuits must (I believe) be filed where the company is physically located. In some of these locations, judges will probably rule more favorably than the Napster judge, leading to a number of conflicting rulings depending on the location.
Ultimately this will end up in the Supreme Court, which will set the ground rules for operating file sharing systems (at least until congress steps in). But it is interesting to think that the business success of these companies depends on whether a local judge allows them to temporary remain open (and gain mindshare) or temproarily close down (and give up mindshare).
If I were in this business, I would hedge my bets. What locations are likely to yield positive legal rulings? What locations do not already have a viable Napster alternative. I would set up my company and servers in those locations. I might even start multiple companies in multiple locations, with the hope that a few will be (temporarily) allowed to remain open.
Regardless of the ultimate Supreme Court rulings (or congressional actions) the systems which remain open in the short term will have the greatest likelyhood of business success in the long term.
We can debate the merits of disclosure vs. nondisclosure of security holes, but the bottom line is that there will always be motives for hackers to disclose security holes in software. The key motives are publicity and recognition, which appear to drive many of those involved in hacking/cracking. And what better way to become recognized in this community than to be the first to identify a security flaw.
The real question is how to use this in a positive way, and I agree this is largely a social issue. We need a way to (1) channel the energy of the hackers in a positive direction, and (2) force companies to be proactive in filling their security holes.
One way would be to to encourage the following approach: If a hacker identifies a new security hole, they (1) notify the company who's software is vulnerable, (2) tell the company they will publicly disclose the vulnerability after a reasonable "quiet period" (perhaps two weeks), and (3) tell the company they would expect/appreciate an expression of credit/recognition once the company publishes the fix.
At that point the ball is in the software company's court. If they fix the problem (and credit the hacker), then it is a win-win-win situation for the vendor-hacker-public. If they don't fix the problem within the "quiet period", then the hacker discloses the problem, and the company looks irresponsible, and is still ultimately forced to resolve the problem. And if the company doesn't credit the hacker, the hacker publishes their previous communication, and the company looks like thankless scum.
So how do we encourage this approach? We might start by looking at the terms we use to describe hackers. Most hackers would rather be known as "White Hat", as opposed to "Grey Hat" (or Black Hat). In my mind, those that take the above approach (notify, wait, publish) should truly be called "White Hat" hackers. Those that publish immediately (without pre-notifying the company) should prehaps be viewed in a more negative light, and should be called Grey Hat Hackers.
The article was interesting, but seemed to rely on the assumption that there was a flat (inelastic) section of the demand curve (i.e. a plot of demanded units of capacity vs. cost per unit of capacity). As with many purchases having a long lead time, there is a tendancy to confuse short-term inelasticity with long-term inelasticity.
Lets assume that within the next week the price of launch capacity dropped from $10,000/pound to $1,000/pound (OK...$5,000/Kg to $500/kg). It is doubtful we would see additional launches the following week, since it takes a long time to finance, design and built a functional space gadget. But we could be pretty sure that launch volumes would increase within three years.
Another interesting aspect of the economics is that transportation (launches) is only one component of the satelite cost; the hardware is also expensive. Assuming that launch costs decrease faster than hardware costs, the effect of launch costs will become less significant in the future.
There is a large market niche of folks who value security and privacy in their browser. Ultimately this niche will be filled by someone, but the question is who? Microsoft appears to have only limited appeal to this market segment, and if the charges made here are correct, AOL/Netscape also seems to be squandering their opportunity.
A commitment to target this niche must come from the top levels of an organization. The corporate leaders must make it very clear that backdoors, bugs, data capture etc. are not permitted in their software. Without this leadership from the top, there is too much temptation (in the middle) to participate in this type of shenanigans.
The folks at AOL/Netscape have a great opportunity to differentiate themselves in how they handle privacy issues. From a PR standpoint, it seems like a no-brainer for AOL/Netscape management to proclaim that this type of backdoor is unacceptable, and that they will immediately investigate and close it. If it turns out that the alleged backdoor exists, and AOL/Netscape does not immediately and proactively work to correct it, their credibility in this market will be irreparably damaged.
A quote from the article: "We have no evidence that stands up under srutiny," Healy says, "that computer education is helpful for learning in children under the fourth grade."
This is not the same as saying computers are bad for kids, as was implied in the/. summary. An no research was cited to show that computers were bad. In fact there is a large body of evidence that shows that exposure to sensory and mental experience is beneficial for childhood intelectural development. For example there is significant research showing early exposure to music can be beneficial. The same would probably hold for most other activities which involve complex cause/effect relationships...such as interacting with a computer.
Maybe there is a negative effect if a kid spends 8 hours a day playing the same video game; well rounded development requires a wide range of experiences (social, intelectual, recreational, physical, emotional). But implying that computers are bad for kids certainly appears to be an overinterpretation of the article, and an overinterpretation of the available information.
Oooh, the FIN brochure had a business reply (postage paid) card attached. When these cards are provided by some disagreable cause or organization, I like to start my own grass roots movement...I return in the card blank. Its a minor act of resistance which costs the addressee first class postage plus a few extra cents. Its not much, but it helps calm my anger. And if everyone did it...
Slashdot Mirror
I ran SETI@home for a while, and wondered what the incremental cost was to me as a user. Yes the equipment was paid for and idle. And I assume it used a few more watts of electricity (a few more bucks a year). But the bigger costs are probably hidden, and fall into two areas:
(1) POOR SOFTWARE DESIGN. Can cause memory leaks, security issues, need to re-boot more often etc. Solution: A web site offering a range of projects I could "donate" my cycles to, with all the projects running as sub-clients under a well tested (stable, reliable, trusted) supervisory client which I would install on my machine. This would be a great open-source project.
(2) HARDWARE RELIABILITY. Under normal use (w/o a distributed application running) my processor probably goes through thermal cycles as its workload changes. I wonder if a constant processor workload improves processor life-to-failure (by stabilizing processor temperature and minimizing expansion/contraction). If so, then running distributed software would have a very tangible benefit to users.
Impressionist painters tried to ignore their mental processing of images, and to just see the world as blotches of color. They would then try to paint the colors, without regard to the underlying objects they represented. I have occasionally tried this kind of visualization, and it was not easy. It required a completely different mindset, and gave a very unusual view of the world.
It made me realize how much we take for granted the amount of post-processing our brain does to extract information from our eyeballs' visual color signals.
Scientists, Engineers, Techncal People and other Nerds love to have a model for most things. So here's my model for political views (not parties, thought the equivalent named parties roughly fall in line)
Republican: Socially Conservative, Economically Conservative
Democrat: Socially Liberal, Economically Liberal
Libertarian: Socailly Liberal, Economically Conservative
Populist: Socially Consertative, Economically Liberal
Even though most people's views fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum (in all four quadrants), the political process is dominated by those representing the extreme edges of diagonally opposite views (first two groups). So instead of a a debate on the issues and a search for consensus, we seem to have personality contest and a tug-of-war.
Unfortunately neither a personality contest nor a tug-of war will be won by Mr./Ms. Deformed Carbonrod.
Sigh.
It appears that RIAA is also starting to sue other Napster lookalikes (i.e. Scour). These lawsuits must (I believe) be filed where the company is physically located. In some of these locations, judges will probably rule more favorably than the Napster judge, leading to a number of conflicting rulings depending on the location.
Ultimately this will end up in the Supreme Court, which will set the ground rules for operating file sharing systems (at least until congress steps in). But it is interesting to think that the business success of these companies depends on whether a local judge allows them to temporary remain open (and gain mindshare) or temproarily close down (and give up mindshare).
If I were in this business, I would hedge my bets. What locations are likely to yield positive legal rulings? What locations do not already have a viable Napster alternative. I would set up my company and servers in those locations. I might even start multiple companies in multiple locations, with the hope that a few will be (temporarily) allowed to remain open.
Regardless of the ultimate Supreme Court rulings (or congressional actions) the systems which remain open in the short term will have the greatest likelyhood of business success in the long term.
We can debate the merits of disclosure vs. nondisclosure of security holes, but the bottom line is that there will always be motives for hackers to disclose security holes in software. The key motives are publicity and recognition, which appear to drive many of those involved in hacking/cracking. And what better way to become recognized in this community than to be the first to identify a security flaw.
The real question is how to use this in a positive way, and I agree this is largely a social issue. We need a way to (1) channel the energy of the hackers in a positive direction, and (2) force companies to be proactive in filling their security holes.
One way would be to to encourage the following approach: If a hacker identifies a new security hole, they (1) notify the company who's software is vulnerable, (2) tell the company they will publicly disclose the vulnerability after a reasonable "quiet period" (perhaps two weeks), and (3) tell the company they would expect/appreciate an expression of credit/recognition once the company publishes the fix.
At that point the ball is in the software company's court. If they fix the problem (and credit the hacker), then it is a win-win-win situation for the vendor-hacker-public. If they don't fix the problem within the "quiet period", then the hacker discloses the problem, and the company looks irresponsible, and is still ultimately forced to resolve the problem. And if the company doesn't credit the hacker, the hacker publishes their previous communication, and the company looks like thankless scum.
So how do we encourage this approach? We might start by looking at the terms we use to describe hackers. Most hackers would rather be known as "White Hat", as opposed to "Grey Hat" (or Black Hat). In my mind, those that take the above approach (notify, wait, publish) should truly be called "White Hat" hackers. Those that publish immediately (without pre-notifying the company) should prehaps be viewed in a more negative light, and should be called Grey Hat Hackers.
The article was interesting, but seemed to rely on the assumption that there was a flat (inelastic) section of the demand curve (i.e. a plot of demanded units of capacity vs. cost per unit of capacity). As with many purchases having a long lead time, there is a tendancy to confuse short-term inelasticity with long-term inelasticity.
Lets assume that within the next week the price of launch capacity dropped from $10,000/pound to $1,000/pound (OK...$5,000/Kg to $500/kg). It is doubtful we would see additional launches the following week, since it takes a long time to finance, design and built a functional space gadget. But we could be pretty sure that launch volumes would increase within three years.
Another interesting aspect of the economics is that transportation (launches) is only one component of the satelite cost; the hardware is also expensive. Assuming that launch costs decrease faster than hardware costs, the effect of launch costs will become less significant in the future.
There is a large market niche of folks who value security and privacy in their browser. Ultimately this niche will be filled by someone, but the question is who? Microsoft appears to have only limited appeal to this market segment, and if the charges made here are correct, AOL/Netscape also seems to be squandering their opportunity.
A commitment to target this niche must come from the top levels of an organization. The corporate leaders must make it very clear that backdoors, bugs, data capture etc. are not permitted in their software. Without this leadership from the top, there is too much temptation (in the middle) to participate in this type of shenanigans.
The folks at AOL/Netscape have a great opportunity to differentiate themselves in how they handle privacy issues. From a PR standpoint, it seems like a no-brainer for AOL/Netscape management to proclaim that this type of backdoor is unacceptable, and that they will immediately investigate and close it. If it turns out that the alleged backdoor exists, and AOL/Netscape does not immediately and proactively work to correct it, their credibility in this market will be irreparably damaged.
This is not the same as saying computers are bad for kids, as was implied in the /. summary. An no research was cited to show that computers were bad. In fact there is a large body of evidence that shows that exposure to sensory and mental experience is beneficial for childhood intelectural development. For example there is significant research showing early exposure to music can be beneficial. The same would probably hold for most other activities which involve complex cause/effect relationships...such as interacting with a computer.
Maybe there is a negative effect if a kid spends 8 hours a day playing the same video game; well rounded development requires a wide range of experiences (social, intelectual, recreational, physical, emotional). But implying that computers are bad for kids certainly appears to be an overinterpretation of the article, and an overinterpretation of the available information.
Oooh, the FIN brochure had a business reply (postage paid) card attached. When these cards are provided by some disagreable cause or organization, I like to start my own grass roots movement...I return in the card blank. Its a minor act of resistance which costs the addressee first class postage plus a few extra cents. Its not much, but it helps calm my anger. And if everyone did it...