I can't help noticing that Napster and Microsoft both offer very large downloads
You have a point here that "time spent online" doesn't necessarily mean "active" time. In fact, the article doesn't mention how these statistics where gathered, which people were polled or which types of Internet traffic were measured. As such, the statistics are almost useless. I wonder if the users they polled were in fact AOL users anyway. It would be nice if someone would clarify the statistics so that they have some real meaning.
Re:RFC's?! We don't need no stinking RFC's!!
on
IETF vs. ICANN
·
· Score: 1
Domain name registration doesn't need to be unique anymore than human names do.
This just doesn't work. Can you imagine typing in www.microsoft.com and having the choice of 500 sites to go to? Domain name registrations have to be unique just like telephone numbers have to be unique. Human names aren't comparable because if you wanted to uniquely identify one particular human in the world you would have to say a lot more than just John Smith.
Bigelow said the private space station would be a destination for space tourists and could be used by drug firms.....
Sounds like a perfect holiday location....Nothing for miles except fellow tourists and drugs. But hang on, when you're already floating around and are totally spaced out...who needs drugs?
I recently setup a LAN for an office which was full of old 486s and low end pentiums. What we did was build one Linux server that was a powerful pentium with a gig of RAM. The workstations act as dumb terminals that have basicaly nothing on them except that they act as VNC clients. The server then does all the work.
Since the workstations were so cheap to pick up. (Most of them given to us for free) And the server's RAM was relatively cheap due to good prices on RAM at the moment. The whole solution was incredibly cheap. Imagine setting out an office for 10 people for $3000 or so. Not bad? Of course, the Linux server can add up as a firewall/internet gateway! What more would a small company want?
"A thousand pentium computers would need over 10 years to decrypt a 10 minute phone-call".
In other words this encryption in nothing for the hugh computing powers of the likes of echelon!
Re:RFC's?! We don't need no stinking RFC's!!
on
IETF vs. ICANN
·
· Score: 2
Although your philosophy may seem sound the practability is insane. Domain name registration simply can't be done in a totally anarchistic manner because there has to be somebody to avoid conflicts e.g. when two people claim to have registered the same name first. As soon as you have a body who can intervene in the registration you have a controlling body. It may have a different abreviated name, but it will essentially be the same thing. In short we need a naming authority. Just not like the present one.
There *IS* a good web browser available on these platforms - Internet Explorer.
Did you even read my post? I clearly said that if there was a good browser on the other platforms. That is, I was refering to the platforms that don't have IE. I agree that IE is a good browser the whole point of my post was that it is not available on all platforms and thus limits the choice of users
Why would anyone want to change, except for political reasons?
I would never expect many people to change for political reasons. Heck, most people in the UK still read the Sun newspaper and most people in the US consume more resources in a day than a person in the third world would consume in a few months. Not many people care about what is right politically. However, that doesn't excuse the ignorance of the politically correct reaons. It doesn't make the wrongs that Microsoft commit suddenly become right.
And since you ask, there are many reaons why someone might want to change from Windows for non-polictical reasons. For a start cost, freedom of choice, scalability, stability, cutting egde technology, actually the list is endless. Sometimes I seem to ask myself the question the other way round. Why on earth would people still want to use Windows?
I think you will find that times are changing and people are becoming upset with Microsofts attitude. I recently roled out a new solution for a company completly Linux based where they can use Star Office for the office apps and Mozilla for their browser. They are in fact happy too because it didn't cost them much for the software but at the same time they got so many added extras like a webserver, firewalling, the Gimp. Windows comes with nothing except IE. So if you take IE out of the equation (with Mozilla 1.0) what will keep people to Windows?
I think people do realise what the market share of IE is. However, I have to ask you, what percentage of those Windows and Mac users would use a different platform if there was a decent browser available? You are looking at the problem the wrong way roung. You can't simply say that because people are using Windows and Macs then IE are covering most of the platforms. It is because IE is limited to Windows and Macs the so many people are limited to those platforms. Unfortunteatly I have even fallen into the trap and have a Windows machine at home with the sole purpose of accessing one site that only works under IE. It is rediculous. Being cross platform is all about choice, whereas Microsoft want to limit our choice. This isn't being cross platform!
Well, under Mozilla at least, when you go into the site it jumps into a mad state where it keeps refreshing to itself continuously with the graphics jumping all over the page. I guess the moderators thought the destination site was funny. Annoying more like....
Basic intelligence is not effected by education, or the tools used to acquire information.
Although I agree with you to an extent I do think that exercising the mind will over time improve intelligence. As in, if you spend your whole day solving problems you will become better at problem solving. Similarly, you can train your memory to become better. Consequently, because we usually measure intelligence as a combination of the ability to solve problems and the ability to remember things your intelligence improves.
It is therefore an indirect consequence of better education and better access to technology to have better intelligence. Only because the better education and the better technology will provide an environment that will more likely stimulate someone to improve their intelligence.
f course, someone with no access to education or technology can be stimulated by other reasons and also improve their intelligence.Others are just naturally intelligent.
When I was young and had my first computer, a TI-99-4A, things were easy. There wasn't much about the computer to understand. From a young age I could learn to program the computer and started writing games and stuff in the Extended BASIC that I had with my TI.(The speech synthesizer module was cool).
These days however, things are different. The young kids don't get to program at such a young age because the systems are so complex now they can't understand it easily. BASIC was such an easy language to use and the interface so simple that an kid could have picked it up. Today, kids would have to study a lot of things before being able to program their PCs. Especially those running Windoze.
Also, these days the computer games are so exciting that kids easily get zapped into them for long periods. I can't remember the games on my TI being that great. Enough for a few hours amusement but then I had to resort to programming to amuse myself.
What I think we need to work on is, developing software that can enable kids to control their computer from a young age. However, it would have to target a higher level of excitement than in the old days. The best stuff out there is probably the Lego kits, but they are expensive for most people. Unfortuneatly there is very little stuff for kids under Linux. Hmmm, time to get coding.....
I disagree with Ransom Love's idea that the GPL doesn't make business sense. For the last year I have been working fulltime coding software for my company that is publicly released under the GPL. My company only agreed to release our software as Open Source because of the GPL. It allows us to assure that oue work isn't going to be just zapped up by our competitors and sold by them. That would kill us off very quickly. Instead, we know that our competitors have to either distribute our software (under the GPL) to their customers or write their own. Either way we haven't lost. If they use our code it strengthens us becuase people come to know of our company. In fact, releasing your code under the GPL is probably the best way to get noticed and advertised. You don't have to be a big company, if your source is good, people will start hearing about your work.
On the other hand to release code under liscenses like the BSD liscense doesn't make any business sense. Our competitors will pluck out the good parts of our code, repackage it and sell it for money. We end up like a charity, donating our software to the big companies that could have afforded to do it themselves anyway. I don't think any company can continue to release their code under a BSD style license becuase it leaves them with nothing to protect themselves.The GPL is the perfect license because it protects your property and protects the freedom of your source code. This is what Microsoft hate and fear the most. Microsoft love BSD code because it helps them rather than hinders them.
It is a good read, thanks. I'd like to point out that he doesn't say that there isn't good steganography out there but that, "Nearly all leave behind fingerprints that tip off a careful observer that something unusual is going on." Probably most of the tools people are using have weak algorithms and techniques. It is probably true that it will be sometime before steganography will become a tool for the masses.
The other thing is, just because they can find steg'd images on the internet doesn't really say much. As in, what about the ones they failed to detect? They would have no idea how many the haven't detected so they don't even truely know their success rate. All they have done is found some weaknesses in some of the commonly used tools.
nd read the relevant material in Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography or some other reputable source.
As far as I remember Bruce Scheier mentions Steganography in his book Applied Cryptography but doesn't dismiss it. It is just a bit off topic. Also, you fail to realise the using steganography isn't mutally exclusive to using crpytography. Rather, they can be used complementary
Further, you'd better have a good stash of source materials
Source materials aren't a problem in all situations. I have seen effective use where messages can be hidden in voice telephone calls and other realtime data. You could have a telephone conversation about your daily business and at the same time send hidden private information buried in the call
Steganography is by no means "foolproof", "new", or "relatively unknown".
You are right in that its not new. Many ancient civilisations have used steganographic techniques to hide a message within another message. As for being fool proof, then which system is foolproof? It is like cryptography, if you have the key, or can find the key, you can open the door.
And, AFAIK steganography has a problem with being easily detected
That is not really true. Complex hiding algorithms can be quite hard to detect. The problem with steganography is that once you have detected there is a hidden message it is usually trivial to extract it. However, there is nothing stoping you from inserting an encrypted message.
Besides the size increase of the steg'd images filesize...
Usually the file size wouldn't actually change at all. It would depend on the type of compression used and other factors. Think about a normal bitmap file (or ISDN voice data). There is no compression in a bitmap. So changing the value of a few bits would leave the file the same size.
Also, one of the best ways to use steganography is where the person you are trying to hide the data from doesn't know anything about the orginal data. Possibly you could use realtime data like the voice of a telephone conversation. You phone up a friend and hide a text message in the call. This is very hard to detect.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I am sure that removing the ability to pirate software will bring down Microsoft. Here in the UK I have often been to offices and tried to fix a network problem, asked the guys in the office if they have a Windows 98 machine to be told, "no, but I think we have a Windows 95 CD somewhere." You then realise they are illegally running 20-30 machines in their office. This is just so common.
If people can no longer pirate the software so easily then people will seek alternatives. Whats more, non-Western countries will be even harder hit. I have been to may countries in Asia and the Middle East where it is very difficult to buy orignals. I once went into a computer shop in Pakistan whilst on a contract there. I asked them for a Windows 98 CD and they came with a pirate. I asked them for an original and they said they don't sell the originals.
In short, people just can't afford to pay for original software. I am sure everyone out their has copied some software illegally at some point.
Some large oil tankers take up to a mile to stop in water. I wonder how many miles it would take to stop an asteroid that is 2 km wide in space. It would take some doing really. Plus, your brakes would have to be spot on to stop perfectly in orbit. Otherwise gravity is going to take pull and kaboom!
When working on the support desk for an ISP I once had a dial-up customer who said they were very pleased that they had received our CD but had now been connected to the internet for 3 days and wanted to know how to disconnect!
All the desktops out there are going to be one of the biggest things that keeps Linux from having a serious success in the desktop market any time soon. One thing I love about Windows - It looks the same wherever I go. Sure they have made interface changes over the years, but in thirty seconds I can make it look and act just like it did back in the 3.0 days. This is great when I have to run from computer to computer.
All the desktops out there are going to be on of the biggest things that make Linux a serious success in the desktop market any time soon. One thing I really hate about Windows - It looks the same wherever I do. Sure they have made interface changes over they years, but in thirty seconds I can make it look and act just like it did back in the 3.0 days. And that really sucks!
Personally I think the windows interface really sucks because it hasn't changed at all and that it gives no real option to configure it differently. Sure, you have themes, but come on, they just make the sucking harder. The good thing about Linux is the powerfull configurable choices of desktop environments to suit everyones needs. It can suit young and old, novice and expert. The nice thing is when you walk around an office like mine, everyone's desktop looks unique because they have tailored it to their tastes, yet it doesn't stiffle our compatability.
I've been thinking that why do we need all these dozens of different kind of buses in one PC:
The trouble is even if you invented a new super-duper-bus interface that everyone agreed on you are still going to want to have the pci and isa slots available for legacy hardware. People can't always go out and easily replace hardware. That is why many motherboards still have ISA slots. I have three or four ISDN E1 cards that cost $4000 each which are ISA and god knows how many ISDN E1 PCI cards. If I buy a new motherboard with the new super-duper-bus interface I would still want to have ISA and PCI slots for my old devices.
Also, you mention IDE and SCSI but you should realise that these protocols do a lot more than give access to the I/O bus. They actually provide a standardised interface for block devices to communicate through your I/O bus. Which is why you only need an IDE or SCSI controller and not a seperate driver for each block device you have attached to the controller. In other words, with your super-duper-bus interface you would still need something like SCSI or IDE for your block devices.
In short, we are always going to be stuck with loads of different slots and protocols. We might be able to dump ISA now but it will be a long time before we can dump PCI.
It sounds to me like you are speaking more with a Microsoft type mentality. They are the ones who have to hide their true intent to protect their market share. With Linux we are more interested in building a powerful, stable and secure system. It is good that we admit are weak points. As we have done before. It then gives everyone in the community driver to improve on them.
The trouble with this type of device is that you still have to download the private key from your USB plug onto your computer to do the actually encryption. The USB device itself can't do any encryption/decryption it is just used for storage. It is definately handy for storing your keys but your overall security is only as strong as your weakest link. In this case, your PC.
You could of course invent a device that could do the encryption/decryptions but it is going to need some RAM and processing power to do anything great. May be something like a PDA.
Hehe...Anyone sell ani-tempest blankets for a PDA?:)
", bringing it back to its original ideal of virtual space without borders or hierarchies.'"
Although I don't agree with the current "control freak" mentality of administering TLDs there is a danger with a anarchic system. If I set up a new TLD on my own root servers and I get people within my community to use it - that is fine. Yhy shouldn't I do that? However, if I later find out that another root server, maybe name.space, have decided to offer the same TLD as me then there could potentially be clashes. Someone wouldn't be able to view my domains and name.space's domains at the same time. The same DNS could map to totally different sites and people. You are then back to the problem of needing a governing body to control who can use which TLD's.
The point is, what right do name.space have over any of the rest of us to offer new TLDs? How can we avoid clashes in DNS in an anarchic model of operation?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't help noticing that Napster and Microsoft both offer very large downloads
You have a point here that "time spent online" doesn't necessarily mean "active" time. In fact, the article doesn't mention how these statistics where gathered, which people were polled or which types of Internet traffic were measured. As such, the statistics are almost useless. I wonder if the users they polled were in fact AOL users anyway. It would be nice if someone would clarify the statistics so that they have some real meaning.
Domain name registration doesn't need to be unique anymore than human names do.
This just doesn't work. Can you imagine typing in www.microsoft.com and having the choice of 500 sites to go to? Domain name registrations have to be unique just like telephone numbers have to be unique. Human names aren't comparable because if you wanted to uniquely identify one particular human in the world you would have to say a lot more than just John Smith.
Bigelow said the private space station would be a destination for space tourists and could be used by drug firms.....
Sounds like a perfect holiday location....Nothing for miles except fellow tourists and drugs. But hang on, when you're already floating around and are totally spaced out...who needs drugs?
I recently setup a LAN for an office which was full of old 486s and low end pentiums. What we did was build one Linux server that was a powerful pentium with a gig of RAM. The workstations act as dumb terminals that have basicaly nothing on them except that they act as VNC clients. The server then does all the work.
Since the workstations were so cheap to pick up. (Most of them given to us for free) And the server's RAM was relatively cheap due to good prices on RAM at the moment. The whole solution was incredibly cheap. Imagine setting out an office for 10 people for $3000 or so. Not bad? Of course, the Linux server can add up as a firewall/internet gateway! What more would a small company want?
"A thousand pentium computers would need over 10 years to decrypt a 10 minute phone-call".
In other words this encryption in nothing for the hugh computing powers of the likes of echelon!
Although your philosophy may seem sound the practability is insane. Domain name registration simply can't be done in a totally anarchistic manner because there has to be somebody to avoid conflicts e.g. when two people claim to have registered the same name first. As soon as you have a body who can intervene in the registration you have a controlling body. It may have a different abreviated name, but it will essentially be the same thing. In short we need a naming authority. Just not like the present one.
There *IS* a good web browser available on these platforms - Internet Explorer.
Did you even read my post? I clearly said that if there was a good browser on the other platforms. That is, I was refering to the platforms that don't have IE. I agree that IE is a good browser the whole point of my post was that it is not available on all platforms and thus limits the choice of users
Why would anyone want to change, except for political reasons?
I would never expect many people to change for political reasons. Heck, most people in the UK still read the Sun newspaper and most people in the US consume more resources in a day than a person in the third world would consume in a few months. Not many people care about what is right politically. However, that doesn't excuse the ignorance of the politically correct reaons. It doesn't make the wrongs that Microsoft commit suddenly become right.
And since you ask, there are many reaons why someone might want to change from Windows for non-polictical reasons. For a start cost, freedom of choice, scalability, stability, cutting egde technology, actually the list is endless. Sometimes I seem to ask myself the question the other way round. Why on earth would people still want to use Windows?
I think you will find that times are changing and people are becoming upset with Microsofts attitude. I recently roled out a new solution for a company completly Linux based where they can use Star Office for the office apps and Mozilla for their browser. They are in fact happy too because it didn't cost them much for the software but at the same time they got so many added extras like a webserver, firewalling, the Gimp. Windows comes with nothing except IE. So if you take IE out of the equation (with Mozilla 1.0) what will keep people to Windows?
I think people do realise what the market share of IE is. However, I have to ask you, what percentage of those Windows and Mac users would use a different platform if there was a decent browser available? You are looking at the problem the wrong way roung. You can't simply say that because people are using Windows and Macs then IE are covering most of the platforms. It is because IE is limited to Windows and Macs the so many people are limited to those platforms. Unfortunteatly I have even fallen into the trap and have a Windows machine at home with the sole purpose of accessing one site that only works under IE. It is rediculous. Being cross platform is all about choice, whereas Microsoft want to limit our choice. This isn't being cross platform!
Well, under Mozilla at least, when you go into the site it jumps into a mad state where it keeps refreshing to itself continuously with the graphics jumping all over the page. I guess the moderators thought the destination site was funny. Annoying more like....
Basic intelligence is not effected by education, or the tools used to acquire information.
Although I agree with you to an extent I do think that exercising the mind will over time improve intelligence. As in, if you spend your whole day solving problems you will become better at problem solving. Similarly, you can train your memory to become better. Consequently, because we usually measure intelligence as a combination of the ability to solve problems and the ability to remember things your intelligence improves.
It is therefore an indirect consequence of better education and better access to technology to have better intelligence. Only because the better education and the better technology will provide an environment that will more likely stimulate someone to improve their intelligence.
f course, someone with no access to education or technology can be stimulated by other reasons and also improve their intelligence.Others are just naturally intelligent.
When I was young and had my first computer, a TI-99-4A, things were easy. There wasn't much about the computer to understand. From a young age I could learn to program the computer and started writing games and stuff in the Extended BASIC that I had with my TI.(The speech synthesizer module was cool).
These days however, things are different. The young kids don't get to program at such a young age because the systems are so complex now they can't understand it easily. BASIC was such an easy language to use and the interface so simple that an kid could have picked it up. Today, kids would have to study a lot of things before being able to program their PCs. Especially those running Windoze.
Also, these days the computer games are so exciting that kids easily get zapped into them for long periods. I can't remember the games on my TI being that great. Enough for a few hours amusement but then I had to resort to programming to amuse myself.
What I think we need to work on is, developing software that can enable kids to control their computer from a young age. However, it would have to target a higher level of excitement than in the old days. The best stuff out there is probably the Lego kits, but they are expensive for most people. Unfortuneatly there is very little stuff for kids under Linux. Hmmm, time to get coding.....
I disagree with Ransom Love's idea that the GPL doesn't make business sense. For the last year I have been working fulltime coding software for my company that is publicly released under the GPL. My company only agreed to release our software as Open Source because of the GPL. It allows us to assure that oue work isn't going to be just zapped up by our competitors and sold by them. That would kill us off very quickly. Instead, we know that our competitors have to either distribute our software (under the GPL) to their customers or write their own. Either way we haven't lost. If they use our code it strengthens us becuase people come to know of our company. In fact, releasing your code under the GPL is probably the best way to get noticed and advertised. You don't have to be a big company, if your source is good, people will start hearing about your work.
On the other hand to release code under liscenses like the BSD liscense doesn't make any business sense. Our competitors will pluck out the good parts of our code, repackage it and sell it for money. We end up like a charity, donating our software to the big companies that could have afforded to do it themselves anyway. I don't think any company can continue to release their code under a BSD style license becuase it leaves them with nothing to protect themselves.The GPL is the perfect license because it protects your property and protects the freedom of your source code. This is what Microsoft hate and fear the most. Microsoft love BSD code because it helps them rather than hinders them.
I am reading your post with a sense of Deja Vu! Haven't I already replied to your post today? Haven't you got anything original to say?
It is a good read, thanks. I'd like to point out that he doesn't say that there isn't good steganography out there but that, "Nearly all leave behind fingerprints that tip off a careful observer that something unusual is going on." Probably most of the tools people are using have weak algorithms and techniques. It is probably true that it will be sometime before steganography will become a tool for the masses.
The other thing is, just because they can find steg'd images on the internet doesn't really say much. As in, what about the ones they failed to detect? They would have no idea how many the haven't detected so they don't even truely know their success rate. All they have done is found some weaknesses in some of the commonly used tools.
nd read the relevant material in Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography or some other reputable source.
As far as I remember Bruce Scheier mentions Steganography in his book Applied Cryptography but doesn't dismiss it. It is just a bit off topic. Also, you fail to realise the using steganography isn't mutally exclusive to using crpytography. Rather, they can be used complementary
Further, you'd better have a good stash of source materials
Source materials aren't a problem in all situations. I have seen effective use where messages can be hidden in voice telephone calls and other realtime data. You could have a telephone conversation about your daily business and at the same time send hidden private information buried in the call
Steganography is by no means "foolproof", "new", or "relatively unknown".
You are right in that its not new. Many ancient civilisations have used steganographic techniques to hide a message within another message. As for being fool proof, then which system is foolproof? It is like cryptography, if you have the key, or can find the key, you can open the door.
And, AFAIK steganography has a problem with being easily detected
That is not really true. Complex hiding algorithms can be quite hard to detect. The problem with steganography is that once you have detected there is a hidden message it is usually trivial to extract it. However, there is nothing stoping you from inserting an encrypted message.
Besides the size increase of the steg'd images filesize...
Usually the file size wouldn't actually change at all. It would depend on the type of compression used and other factors. Think about a normal bitmap file (or ISDN voice data). There is no compression in a bitmap. So changing the value of a few bits would leave the file the same size.
Also, one of the best ways to use steganography is where the person you are trying to hide the data from doesn't know anything about the orginal data. Possibly you could use realtime data like the voice of a telephone conversation. You phone up a friend and hide a text message in the call. This is very hard to detect.
the "open source" model will fail
I get really fed-up with all those people who keep screaming about how the Open Source model will fail. Look around you, its thriving not failing!
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I am sure that removing the ability to pirate software will bring down Microsoft. Here in the UK I have often been to offices and tried to fix a network problem, asked the guys in the office if they have a Windows 98 machine to be told, "no, but I think we have a Windows 95 CD somewhere." You then realise they are illegally running 20-30 machines in their office. This is just so common.
If people can no longer pirate the software so easily then people will seek alternatives. Whats more, non-Western countries will be even harder hit. I have been to may countries in Asia and the Middle East where it is very difficult to buy orignals. I once went into a computer shop in Pakistan whilst on a contract there. I asked them for a Windows 98 CD and they came with a pirate. I asked them for an original and they said they don't sell the originals.
In short, people just can't afford to pay for original software. I am sure everyone out their has copied some software illegally at some point.
Some large oil tankers take up to a mile to stop in water. I wonder how many miles it would take to stop an asteroid that is 2 km wide in space. It would take some doing really. Plus, your brakes would have to be spot on to stop perfectly in orbit. Otherwise gravity is going to take pull and kaboom!
When working on the support desk for an ISP I once had a dial-up customer who said they were very pleased that they had received our CD but had now been connected to the internet for 3 days and wanted to know how to disconnect!
All the desktops out there are going to be one of the biggest things that keeps Linux from having a serious success in the desktop market any time soon. One thing I love about Windows - It looks the same wherever I go. Sure they have made interface changes over the years, but in thirty seconds I can make it look and act just like it did back in the 3.0 days. This is great when I have to run from computer to computer.
All the desktops out there are going to be on of the biggest things that make Linux a serious success in the desktop market any time soon. One thing I really hate about Windows - It looks the same wherever I do. Sure they have made interface changes over they years, but in thirty seconds I can make it look and act just like it did back in the 3.0 days. And that really sucks!
Personally I think the windows interface really sucks because it hasn't changed at all and that it gives no real option to configure it differently. Sure, you have themes, but come on, they just make the sucking harder. The good thing about Linux is the powerfull configurable choices of desktop environments to suit everyones needs. It can suit young and old, novice and expert. The nice thing is when you walk around an office like mine, everyone's desktop looks unique because they have tailored it to their tastes, yet it doesn't stiffle our compatability.
I've been thinking that why do we need all these dozens of different kind of buses in one PC:
The trouble is even if you invented a new super-duper-bus interface that everyone agreed on you are still going to want to have the pci and isa slots available for legacy hardware. People can't always go out and easily replace hardware. That is why many motherboards still have ISA slots. I have three or four ISDN E1 cards that cost $4000 each which are ISA and god knows how many ISDN E1 PCI cards. If I buy a new motherboard with the new super-duper-bus interface I would still want to have ISA and PCI slots for my old devices.
Also, you mention IDE and SCSI but you should realise that these protocols do a lot more than give access to the I/O bus. They actually provide a standardised interface for block devices to communicate through your I/O bus. Which is why you only need an IDE or SCSI controller and not a seperate driver for each block device you have attached to the controller. In other words, with your super-duper-bus interface you would still need something like SCSI or IDE for your block devices.
In short, we are always going to be stuck with loads of different slots and protocols. We might be able to dump ISA now but it will be a long time before we can dump PCI.
It sounds to me like you are speaking more with a Microsoft type mentality. They are the ones who have to hide their true intent to protect their market share. With Linux we are more interested in building a powerful, stable and secure system. It is good that we admit are weak points. As we have done before. It then gives everyone in the community driver to improve on them.
The trouble with this type of device is that you still have to download the private key from your USB plug onto your computer to do the actually encryption. The USB device itself can't do any encryption/decryption it is just used for storage. It is definately handy for storing your keys but your overall security is only as strong as your weakest link. In this case, your PC.
You could of course invent a device that could do the encryption/decryptions but it is going to need some RAM and processing power to do anything great. May be something like a PDA.
Hehe...Anyone sell ani-tempest blankets for a PDA? :)
", bringing it back to its original ideal of virtual space without borders or hierarchies.'"
Although I don't agree with the current "control freak" mentality of administering TLDs there is a danger with a anarchic system. If I set up a new TLD on my own root servers and I get people within my community to use it - that is fine. Yhy shouldn't I do that? However, if I later find out that another root server, maybe name.space, have decided to offer the same TLD as me then there could potentially be clashes. Someone wouldn't be able to view my domains and name.space's domains at the same time. The same DNS could map to totally different sites and people. You are then back to the problem of needing a governing body to control who can use which TLD's.
The point is, what right do name.space have over any of the rest of us to offer new TLDs? How can we avoid clashes in DNS in an anarchic model of operation?