I believe the fundamental point here isn't about how to make trees work with symlinks, virtual folders etc. but finding a better paradigm for information storage.
We are accumulating more and more data on our hard drives - documents, music, photos, films etc. - and as we do so trees become less and less effective as a means to organise the data. Many of us probably have seperate photos and movies folders but suppose, for example, you've been on holiday and have a lot of photos and also a few movies you recorded while you were there. If you split these into the movies and photos folders then suddenly you break the connection between the files. If you create a holiday media folder then you can no longer rely on the photos folder to contain all your photos.
I've come across a couple of solutions to the problem. The first is what could be described as an attribute-based filing system, newdocms : files are assigned many attributes which can then be used to search and cluster the files. Unfortunately, the project seemed to die a sudden death at the end of January. Second, is Microsoft's research MyLifeBits project which has a similar concept but adds annotation and hyper-linking.
My personal view is that the answer lies somewhere in fuzzy sets but I haven't quite finished thinking things through yet...
As much as it satisfies me to see the corps take a battering for loose security and while I'd like to see them do something about it, one thing that concerns me is that the solution could pose a serious problem for Free Software.
I have a feeling that as the consumers demand tighter security control, that will mean independent security testing and certification. That testing will undoubtedly cost the software manufacturers money to pass their products through which will be fine for the corps but a huge problem for Free Software projects.
The result could be a certified, albeit more secure IIS, but an uncertified Apache because the Free Software community didn't have any pockets to fund it.
"I'm releasing my software for free! But if you want to use my source, I'm going to make you release your software for free too, so that I can use your modifications."
Versus:
"I'm releasing my software for free. I don't mind what you do with it -- it's free, it's out there, and what you do with it is your choice. Just give me a credit, and everything's kosher"
Which is more altrustic to you? Which gives everyone more freedom?
Well actually, I believe the first one gives more freedom to more people. Supposing your BSD-licenced program makes it big and people start writing software based on your program. Then they release their code under a proprietary licence (albeit giving the necessary credit). Their software becomes even more popular and as far the masses are concerned they've lost some liberty.
The GPL is waging a war against proprietary software by forcing it to be free. Hence, it does alot more for the greater good.
I don't think SET was really such a bad protocol in itself, the problem lied more with the VISA/Mastercard who, after pouring so much money into developing the protocol, did precious little to see it put into practice.
Also, I don't think the expense of implementing a SET infrastructure is too great for either the banks or the merchants if a third party can provide such an infrastructure for all parties to use.
In Norway, there will soon be a "liability shift" where the acquirers will no longer be held responsible for recompensing fraudulant transactions but the banks will - except in the case of full SET transactions. Consequently, the banks have finally been given the kick they needed to implement a SET solution.
However, just as things started to seem straightforward, VISA announced "3D-Secure" which is to replace SET so those countries which have some kind of SET infrastructure in place will now have to scrap it for yet another one!
Things could have been alot simpler if only VISA and Mastercard could have agreed on and stuck to a single strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the fundamental point here isn't about how to make trees work with symlinks, virtual folders etc. but finding a better paradigm for information storage.
We are accumulating more and more data on our hard drives - documents, music, photos, films etc. - and as we do so trees become less and less effective as a means to organise the data. Many of us probably have seperate photos and movies folders but suppose, for example, you've been on holiday and have a lot of photos and also a few movies you recorded while you were there. If you split these into the movies and photos folders then suddenly you break the connection between the files. If you create a holiday media folder then you can no longer rely on the photos folder to contain all your photos.
I've come across a couple of solutions to the problem. The first is what could be described as an attribute-based filing system, newdocms : files are assigned many attributes which can then be used to search and cluster the files. Unfortunately, the project seemed to die a sudden death at the end of January. Second, is Microsoft's research MyLifeBits project which has a similar concept but adds annotation and hyper-linking.
My personal view is that the answer lies somewhere in fuzzy sets but I haven't quite finished thinking things through yet...
As much as it satisfies me to see the corps take a battering for loose security and while I'd like to see them do something about it, one thing that concerns me is that the solution could pose a serious problem for Free Software.
I have a feeling that as the consumers demand tighter security control, that will mean independent security testing and certification. That testing will undoubtedly cost the software manufacturers money to pass their products through which will be fine for the corps but a huge problem for Free Software projects.
The result could be a certified, albeit more secure IIS, but an uncertified Apache because the Free Software community didn't have any pockets to fund it.
Experience would suggest that it will take only another 18 months to add 2,000MHz so why should 500 be such a big deal?
It's all relative, my friend.
"I'm releasing my software for free! But if you want to use my source, I'm going to make you release your software for free too, so that I can use your modifications."
Versus:
"I'm releasing my software for free. I don't mind what you do with it -- it's free, it's out there, and what you do with it is your choice. Just give me a credit, and everything's kosher"
Which is more altrustic to you? Which gives everyone more freedom?
Well actually, I believe the first one gives more freedom to more people. Supposing your BSD-licenced program makes it big and people start writing software based on your program. Then they release their code under a proprietary licence (albeit giving the necessary credit). Their software becomes even more popular and as far the masses are concerned they've lost some liberty.
The GPL is waging a war against proprietary software by forcing it to be free. Hence, it does alot more for the greater good.
I think you're confusing "free" as in free-of-charge with "free" as in free to do as you please with it.
I don't think SET was really such a bad protocol in itself, the problem lied more with the VISA/Mastercard who, after pouring so much money into developing the protocol, did precious little to see it put into practice. Also, I don't think the expense of implementing a SET infrastructure is too great for either the banks or the merchants if a third party can provide such an infrastructure for all parties to use. In Norway, there will soon be a "liability shift" where the acquirers will no longer be held responsible for recompensing fraudulant transactions but the banks will - except in the case of full SET transactions. Consequently, the banks have finally been given the kick they needed to implement a SET solution. However, just as things started to seem straightforward, VISA announced "3D-Secure" which is to replace SET so those countries which have some kind of SET infrastructure in place will now have to scrap it for yet another one! Things could have been alot simpler if only VISA and Mastercard could have agreed on and stuck to a single strategy.