Privacy issues will be the major thing that kills video-cell phones -- unless some sort of ettiquette gets developed. This is the sort of thing that would drive the youth market, among others, away in droves if they realized the implications. (Parents call up the phone: "So, I see your dorm room is as messy as over." "What are you doing at the mall? I thought you were going to the library! I don't see any books behind you." "Show me who you are talking to." "I want to see what you are doing.")
Undoubtedly there are positive uses that people will want to use such things for as well, but the ability to easily "let others see through walls" by bringing a video-cell phone into places where cameras aren't normally allowed (restrooms, movie theatres, nude bars, etc.) is going to cause problems. These are not technology problems per se, but social/cultural ones. Given time, people might adapt, maybe.
No doubt there will be many interesting potential legal cases coming out of such technology...
Actually, the complexity for a server that handles 100 clients is less than the complexity of 100 clients -- depending on your metrics. If you need a management system that can manage and monitor 100 clients verses a management system that just manages one system, that weighs into the complexity calculation. For 100 fat-clients, what are the tech support issues verses 1 server and 100 very basic thin-clients? Now, take these two issues and start having a fat-client base where some fat-clients are running older software, some newer software, etc. There is a reason why some companies moved their server-farms onto a single mainframe.
Sorry, in other threads people kept talking about bandwidth increases per application on a thin client, missing the point.
Whether or not applications use more CPU misses the point again. Suppose user A in the US is running a CPU intensive program during the day -- it uses 100% of a CPU, but only during the day. During the night, then user B in Australia can use the CPU 100%. This is more efficient utilization, and cuts the cost for both. If you have the usage modelling/statistics to manage the capacity, it scales much more efficiently for all concerned, and (in an ideal world) better efficiency == lower cost. Or, imagine if a user has a highly CPU intensive program, but they only need to run it once every month or so -- does it make sense for them to invest in a fat-client solution that has the capacity to run the application, but will be idle most of the time, or invest in a thin-client and only use/pay-for the CPU used by the application when running? The example of 50 users each running 1% was just an example -- a more accurate version might be 50 users running an *average* of 1%, with an overall average usage total on the CPU of, say, 75%.
Now, in the ideal world, we would support both configurations, thin and fat, and let people choose the one they prefer.
Current prices on SIP phones appear to be in the $500-$600 range. Remember, your average cell phone gets subsidized by a service contract which is why providers can give them away for free/1 cent/etc. The actual cost of the phone is masked by that.
Of course it can be achievable with a not-so-dumb client. You can always add complexity to a system. Just because you can does not mean it's a good idea, though. Complexity can lead to fragility.
More bandwidth is NOT required for each application. Why do people keep thinking that? If it takes X number of bytes (worst case) per second to keep the display updated, then it will always take X number of bytes (max) per second to keep the display updated *regardless of the application running*.
More CPU may be required for each application, but that would be supplied off the central server which can facilitate more efficient usage of resources (i.e. 50 users running on one CPU at 50% capacity, verses each of those users running their own CPU at 1% capacity. And it's much easier to make that one CPU have a 99.999% uptime than fifty of them.)
As far as service availability goes, I do not feel that is an issue. I cannot recall the last time I picked up my favorite thin-client (i.e. my telephone) and not gotten a dial tone. These things can be done.
I would suggest you look at your network equipment more closely. Unless each of those fat-clients has dual NICs, dual last-mile connections following different physical routes to different terminating end-point equipment, etc. You will always have single points of failure. (PBCAK, even.)
If there is no information worth backing up on your fat-client, why do you have it? If it's just an access device, why not a thin client?
Amazingly, the US telephone system has shown itself to be fairly reliable. You are correct that "if" the entire US phone system crashed, there would be problems. Systems can be built to that level of reliability, however. Fortunately so far we have not had problems with the rather centralized root DNS servers going down too much, either -- though there was that problem about four years ago with the routing accident.
Indeed. Looking around the Internet at all the 'fat-clients' (i.e. computers) connected to it, I do not see things like worms (nimda, Code Red, etc.) taking out/degrading the system because all those fat-clients increase the number of targets. I am absolutely positive that if fat-client phones were installed in every household in the US that every person would dutifully make sure the fat-clients were always upgraded with the latest security fixes to all of the applications running on them, and that DDoS attacks would never happen.
You are correct that there are 'fewer targets' to take out in a thin-client system. However, by the same token, there are fewer targets to defend and your efforts can be concentrated on those.
As far as single points of failure and security issues go, take a look at the reliability and security of the current PSTN verses the current Internet. It is indeed possible to build a centralized system with 99.999% uptime.
And each person always has a single point of failure -- their own endpoint or phone. Which is more likely to maintain a 99.999% or better uptime -- the thin-client simple, stateless phone, or the fat-client service laden, stateful phone? (Which is more likely to crash, your calculator or your computer?)
If you looked at the AT&T phone described in the article, you would see that the applications are not moved at all. Only the data. And moving the data from end to end is the point of communications, after all.
Most people order phone services to get *services*. Most people aren't going to want to deal with a fat client, particularly if the fat client requires them to do all the maintenance on it.
Most people don't grow their own food. Most people don't build their own houses. Most people don't do their own medical work. People pay each other to take care of things.
A fat-client phone that requires most people to make sure it is up-to-date with the latest software, to patch security holes, to do their own trouble-shooting and debugging, etc. isn't going to go over with the majority of the populace. Geeks would love them probably, of course.
As long as paying for telephone service as a service is around, the model is going to be pushing for thin-clients because it simplifies the maintenance and service issues, and keeps the costs down.
The ideal architecture would allow for both fat and thin clients, to let those who want to deal with fat clients be able to use them.
There is also another reason why cheap, thin-clients are a good idea -- cost. A cheap, reliable PSTN phone is under $10 USD -- almost everyone can afford one of those. An IP phone with LCD display, CPU enough to handle real time VoIP, RAM, ethernet interface, DSPs, etc. is not cheap -- and the more complexity you cram into it, the more expensive it gets.
I see many folks advocating the immediate violent retaliation response, even before evidence is gathered and proof is assembled to identify the culprits. This is foolishness.
The people behind the attacks obviously had excellent planning and coordination, and were totally dedicated. The response has to have better planning and better coordination, and be just as dedicated (though not to the point of suicidal attackers.) Knee-jerk reactions against an enemy that has demonstrated such ability to plan are foolish -- the enemy may already have planned for them -- and nothing would look as foolish as throwing military might around only to miss time after time.
Reflexive, violent reactions are why a matador wins over a bull in a bull fight, despite the bull's larger size and greater strength. The attackers have demonstrated they have skill, planning, and patience enough to manage this attack -- the response *must* be just as planned and methodical to prevent them from doing any more.
This does not mean a nice response, this just means it must be an *effective* response.
There is more to this than just trying to find the leader behind the attack. The entire organization must be rooted out -- I would prefer to see that done first, in fact, so that the leader behind this can see that nothing of the organization, nothing he was in charge of, none of the people he led or trained will be left to survive his execution, that there will be no legacy left behind, while we rebuild and continue on.
Does anyone else think the folks foaming at the mouth about keeping the core of the network dumb are ultimately a bit silly? Next they'll be saying we should lobotomize our network and system administrators because the end-users will know enough to keep everything running.
The goal should be a cooperative, smart core, smart edge network.
I think the article is close to the target, but it's not quite there. It's not that authentication by itself is the key, it's the directory services that's part of the authentication which is the key.
Any one remember archie? The difference it made in using FTP? The key part of the phrase "You can find anything on the Internet" is *find*, it's not that any thing and every thing is on the Internet, it's that you can *find* it. (In some way, this is may be what Sun's CEO meant about not having any privacy -- there have always been records kept on people in all sorts of places, just now it is possible to find the records, index them, use them to *find* what you like, or *find* people that like certain things.)
File transfers have been around for a while now. Napster was interesting because it let people, tada, find the files they were looking for that other people have. eBay lets sellers find buyers. Social communities have formed up on the Interent because people have found other people who share similiar interests.
This probably seems all terribly boring, but think about it for a moment. If Microsoft does create a single sign-on authentication system, they will (potentially) have one of (if not the) largest online directory of people (competing with AOL.)
Authentication is just part of it. If Microsoft controls the directory services, they can control who (or what -- i.e. smart tags , etc.) can be found... or not found. Heck, even forget the authentication bit -- anyone serious will have their own level of authentication and authorization, probably -- the first step in authentication of a person is *finding* their record.
Just look at the whole DNS root server mess, Network Solutions and such making money off of basically directory services. The battle over whether or not AOL will have an icon on the Windows desktop. Instant messaging -- which is basically the idea of presence (which appears to be one of the big buzzwords coming up), or rather, making it easier to be found.
Take a look at how much money is made from the sale of.com domains, etc. Now suppose Microsoft had the equivalent of the root DNS servers, but for a directory of identities rather than domain names. How much would someone pay to have an identity of "John Doe" rather than "jdoe@someplace.onthe.net"... just type "John Doe" in your MS email program... Windows Messenger... goodness, maybe even your web browser. Now, wouldn't that be something? MS could let you type in 'identities' or keywords (i.e. "John Doe" "Amy Smith" "Microsoft Corporation" "Plumber" "Sun Microsystem") into your browser/Windows Messenger (off-topic, SIP blows chunks) and pop up perhaps their web page, a phone call, an instant message, or what not. Mmm. Do away with all that messy 'domain name' bit, or rather replace it with the Microsoft authenticated identities. Hmm. Interesting idea, isn't it?
Look, if you want to change the face of the network, the killer app is directory services. Online the map is literally the terrain -- the domain name system is the map we use to find things! That is, if you replaced the current DNS system with something new, that could change web browsing, email, all the services that depend on it to find people, places, and things.
I rather think the issue is do people want an introductory language for computer science or an introductory language that is going to be useful for getting jobs as programmers (software engineering, development.)
If one is teaching the pure theory side of OO, then something like Smalltalk is going to make more sense, perhaps. (Depending on what you want to teach, theory-wise.) C/C++ would be the worst because they are closer to the machine/hardware.
If one is teaching for the more practical/engineering side, then C/C++ and/or Java is going to make more sense, depending on your perception of where the job market is going.
It would be worth considering that should this scenario come true, it would have an interesting impact on the usages of free-vs-commercial operating systems. If the computer costs $15 to make, people are not going to be spending $80-$100 to put Windows Whatever on it.
On the flip side, if the computers are 'disposable', then this might drive up interest in MS.NET and similiar network-based hosting/application providers as a place to store data and applications on, with the $15 computers being treated as more of an access device than a computer -- the catch would be whether or not the monthly service charges or what have you over the long term were cheaper than buying a 'real'/non-disposable computer with software or not.
With all the patenting of such basic processes and ideas, perhaps someone should patent the process of rendering an idea or concept into a document suitable for submission to a patent office. Perhaps patent the business model/process for making money by acting as a patent lawyer who prepares patent documents.
Has anyone patented the business model of filing patents on software and/or business concepts and then going around getting licensing fees for such patents without actually producing anything of use otherwise? That sounds like a distinct, just-as-patentable business concept as some of these others out there. Or perhaps patent the business model of controlling information distribution through patenting decoding technology to prevent third parties from making their own decodes...
So? Why should I have to do anything to gain the same benefits? Instead of saying, "If you incorporate, you get these benefits.", why not just have everyone start off with all the same benefits? Besides I see no problem with corporations gaining these benefits -- if the would stop complaining about the price tag that goes with them (i.e. additional regulation.)
It is still a case of government regulation in the marketplace, is it not? Is this not the very thing people who want a 'free market' protest against -- the "there is no place for government regulation in the marketplace" attitude?
Gasp! You are not saying that sometimes government regulation in the marketplace is a good thing, are you? You'll have all the rabid capitalists here reeling in shock!
Anyways, so why in a "free market" is there any *need* for government-created artificial entities at all?
By the very nature a corporation is a result of government regulation on a free market. A corporation is an artificial entity created by the government, through regulations and laws.
A business that goes crying to the government, "Whaa! The *real* free market is too scary to compete in! Let me incorporate! Protect me!" has little business complaining to the self-same government about being regulated for using the advantages of incorporation that are government regulated and government enforced and otherwise are government meddling in the balance of the market place.
I do not see how a free market should involve the idea of government-created artificial entities competing against individuals.
It is difficult to get people to make changes together, but that is only required because people keep insisting on having the same protocol end-to-end.
I believe this needs to change. There is zero reason for the transport layer to be bound to the data it is transporting, protocol-wise. The application should be able to request a certain type and quality of connection from the transport layer, without caring if the data is going over IPv4, IPv6, ATM, IPX, SNA, or what-have-you. There is *NO* reason for the application to care what it runs over as long as the desired quality of connection is satisfied. The transport should be an opaque layer.
Undoubtedly there are people who feel some reflexive horror at the idea of not being able to look at the transport layer. (In the scenario I am envisioning, there would be no traceroute, perhaps not even a ping as we know it on the Internet today. No 'addressing' that is bound to the protocol (i.e. IP addresses and port numbers), no way to probe/scan a network.) Oddly, I would suspect a fair number of these people also chastise Microsoft for leaving the default setting of MS software products for the least security, and thus requiring user effort to secure the machines. Yet we insist on using a network protocol that allows for casual network probing, port scanning, untraceable DOS attacks, spoofing, snooping, and so forth that requires effort to secure from the defaults. (i.e. firewalls, anti-spoofing filters, add-on encryption, etc.) Where are the people working on creating new transport layer solutions that by default are secure? Where are the equivalent of the folks who urge people to change from MS products due to security reasons to urge people to change from IP for security reasons? But I digress.
My personal curiousity about this matter is wondering about the network that will replace the Internet. I do not believe that in the relatively short time computers have been around that people have already managed to develop 'The' network -- the Internet is just one of the first.
Any opinions on how long it will be until the Internet is either replaced by something new or it evolves/grows into something sufficiently different to be incompatible with what it is today? Given that the Internet only took a bare decade to go from backroom to mainstream, and that the rate of change has only been accelerating, it would be easy to believe that the Internet could find itself being replaced by something new in five to ten years. Just what that is, of course, is hard to say. I would prefer to see a new network evolve that was truly decentralized and dynamic (no central DNS servers to monopolize, no central authority required for addressing, real quality of service, etc.) If I had time, I would probably try to flesh out the ideas for how to build such a network someday.
My personal dark horse choices for setting up new standards/protocols (though not necessarily ones I would favor) in the near future are Nokia and Sony. My private guess is that in a few years those will be the two companies fighting it out for control of standards/access to data. (i.e. people will be accessing the network through cellphones/PDAs or through their home entertainment equipment/PSX[23...n].)
The copyright notice on the book *is* the author asking you not to copy the book. If the author did not mind, the author could release it into the public domain -- the copyright notice is indication that the author did not release into the public domain.
So if an author wrote a book and said to you, "I spent five years writing this, and I produced this hard copy. If you would like to read it, please buy it and promise not to copy it." you would have no problems lying to the author by agreeing to the terms and then copying it?
If I put a jar of candy out on my desk and say, "If you enjoy a piece of candy, please contribute 5 cents." You may steal the candy of course, but I would say that is unethical. (Even if you claim that candy is not-ownable, or common, or cheap, someone has still gone to the effort to make it available to you in this instance.) You may choose to ignore the sign, take all the candy you want, etc., then still claim to be ethical. Other people may or may not agree with your definition of ethical. If I set a book on the shelves, stamp it with a copyright notice, and put a sign out saying, "If you would like to read a book, please buy it and not copy it." is there a difference? (Assuming in neither case is anyone or anything forcing you to eat a piece of candy or read a book.)
This is not a matter of law. There could be no laws governing the above situations (i.e. no property laws or no copyright laws.) This is a matter of ethical consideration -- someone has put forth effort to make something available, and has indicated that they would like an exchange in return. One may rip them off if one wishes.
I am just arguing differently from the author of the essay that IP rights are a government created priviledge. I am making the claim that one can create a (perhaps reasonable with some luck) implementation of IP rights through the use of contractual agreements.
You are correct that under such a system that if you legally hear a piece of music you haven't specifically agree to, you can do what you want with it. If this was the only system available, I suspect that contracts would be made with the distributors/broadcasters/etc. of music such that your odds of listening to music without having had passed some sort of agreement would be minimized.
(The ultimate contract is, perhaps, the laws of the country say this is so, and if one wishes to live under the laws of the country, one agrees to them. Otherwise, one has the option of living in another country without such laws. While it is perhaps unfortunate that one cannot choose the country one is born into, that is just a happenstance of life that one can only do so much about.)
By your agreement theory, the only person the author should be able to punish is me, not innocent people I happened to communicate with.
Um. So? Why should innocent people be punished? I missed something there.
IP rights are not the same things are copyright or patent laws -- those are (perhaps questionable) implementations. The way I am interpreting IP rights are merely that one can treat a certain piece or instance of information as being subject to handling constraints as set forth by the originator. I am just stating that one can create IP rights, or a reasonable facsimilie, through contracts and agreements.
Is there an ethical relationship, however? Beyond that, when one checks out that book, and the first thing listed inside the cover is the copyright notice, does one ignore it, agree with it, or return the book to the library unread? Most libraries I have seen have nice, big signs over their copiers reminding people of copyright issues and fair use. Out of curiosity, when one receives their library card or access, did it come with a list of rules of use of library materials, like copyright issues? If so, they have agreed upon use. No one is forcing them to read the material.
An interesting essay. It makes a statement that Intellectual Property rights are a 'monopoly priviledge granted by the government.' (Assuming for the sake of argument that monopolies are inherently bad things, and that governments can actually grant priviledges -- more accurately, the government restricts others.) If one believes that IP exists wholly as a government illusion, very well.
I am not sure I rather agree with the argument that information is universal. If everyone knew everything, we would not be in this situation, would we? Even if we make the assumption as given in the previous essay mentioned "Anarchism Triumphant", that all information can be reduced to some indefinitely long bitstream (i.e. just a number) there are far more uninteresting numbers than there are interesting ones. If creation is merely a process of discovering bitstreams/numbers, there is still an element of effort in that process -- if everyone could create (not the same as duplicate) any piece of IP trivially, then this would also not be an issue, but not everyone can. As far as the statement of "You cannot own information without owning other people." goes, that is rather stretching things. If I were to own a piece of IP, say, a piece of music, does this automatically give me total control over everyone who hears it? Ridiculous. Depending on the IP right stance taken, though, it might credit to me control over what they do with the IP they have received from me -- which is not the same thing as owning them completely.
I would argue that IP rights exist ultimately as an agreement between parties. As long as I have a right to NOT produce or communicate the ideas I have come up with, as long as I have some right to privacy, then I can choose when and to whom I speak to -- if I speak my mind to one person, that does not require me to speak to all! If I offer to a second party, "I will tell you of the IP I have thought of, if and only if you give your word you will not repeat or reproduce it to any one else without my explicit permission," that is the creation of IP rights in essence. The second party may choose to refuse to accept the conditions of the transaction, but should the second part accept, then they are bound ethically to respect the my IP rights as I have claimed them. If the second party breaks their word, then that is reprehensible -- if transaction was made as a legal contract, enforceable.
If a person pays money for a piece of music, writing, video, etc. that is marked "copyrighted" than that should be regarded as an implicit agreement, an implicit contract, to abide by the copyright laws. If one does not believe in IP rights, then one should, ethically, not purchase or use any copyrighted material! One may try to pursuade others to not use or make copyrighted material, or argue against the concept. It may very well be that IP rights are not 'rights' (i.e. inherent and/or universal,) but even if so, they are trivially fashioned out of mutual agreement between consenting parties, existing as a social construct, perhaps as a legal contract construct -- the only way to not have IP is to prevent people from making agreements between each other! The tyrrany that would prevent individuals or groups from doing such would be a sight to see indeed.
One may claim that if I have thought of a piece of IP, then I should not restrict distribution of it, as it is a universal (sic) thing. Fine -- you think of it for yourself then, if it universal -- you do not need someone else to tell you what you already know.
(Note the above does not touch on patents, just copyright. Patents are not justified by the above as there is no implied contract between two simultaneous independent creators, or independent duplication.)
Slashdot Mirror
Privacy issues will be the major thing that kills video-cell phones -- unless some sort of ettiquette gets developed. This is the sort of thing that would drive the youth market, among others, away in droves if they realized the implications. (Parents call up the phone: "So, I see your dorm room is as messy as over." "What are you doing at the mall? I thought you were going to the library! I don't see any books behind you." "Show me who you are talking to." "I want to see what you are doing.")
Undoubtedly there are positive uses that people will want to use such things for as well, but the ability to easily "let others see through walls" by bringing a video-cell phone into places where cameras aren't normally allowed (restrooms, movie theatres, nude bars, etc.) is going to cause problems. These are not technology problems per se, but social/cultural ones. Given time, people might adapt, maybe.
No doubt there will be many interesting potential legal cases coming out of such technology...
Actually, the complexity for a server that handles 100 clients is less than the complexity of 100 clients -- depending on your metrics. If you need a management system that can manage and monitor 100 clients verses a management system that just manages one system, that weighs into the complexity calculation. For 100 fat-clients, what are the tech support issues verses 1 server and 100 very basic thin-clients? Now, take these two issues and start having a fat-client base where some fat-clients are running older software, some newer software, etc. There is a reason why some companies moved their server-farms onto a single mainframe.
Sorry, in other threads people kept talking about bandwidth increases per application on a thin client, missing the point.
Whether or not applications use more CPU misses the point again. Suppose user A in the US is running a CPU intensive program during the day -- it uses 100% of a CPU, but only during the day. During the night, then user B in Australia can use the CPU 100%. This is more efficient utilization, and cuts the cost for both. If you have the usage modelling/statistics to manage the capacity, it scales much more efficiently for all concerned, and (in an ideal world) better efficiency == lower cost. Or, imagine if a user has a highly CPU intensive program, but they only need to run it once every month or so -- does it make sense for them to invest in a fat-client solution that has the capacity to run the application, but will be idle most of the time, or invest in a thin-client and only use/pay-for the CPU used by the application when running? The example of 50 users each running 1% was just an example -- a more accurate version might be 50 users running an *average* of 1%, with an overall average usage total on the CPU of, say, 75%.
Now, in the ideal world, we would support both configurations, thin and fat, and let people choose the one they prefer.
Current prices on SIP phones appear to be in the $500-$600 range. Remember, your average cell phone gets subsidized by a service contract which is why providers can give them away for free/1 cent/etc. The actual cost of the phone is masked by that.
Of course it can be achievable with a not-so-dumb client. You can always add complexity to a system. Just because you can does not mean it's a good idea, though. Complexity can lead to fragility.
More bandwidth is NOT required for each application. Why do people keep thinking that? If it takes X number of bytes (worst case) per second to keep the display updated, then it will always take X number of bytes (max) per second to keep the display updated *regardless of the application running*.
More CPU may be required for each application, but that would be supplied off the central server which can facilitate more efficient usage of resources (i.e. 50 users running on one CPU at 50% capacity, verses each of those users running their own CPU at 1% capacity. And it's much easier to make that one CPU have a 99.999% uptime than fifty of them.)
As far as service availability goes, I do not feel that is an issue. I cannot recall the last time I picked up my favorite thin-client (i.e. my telephone) and not gotten a dial tone. These things can be done.
I would suggest you look at your network equipment more closely. Unless each of those fat-clients has dual NICs, dual last-mile connections following different physical routes to different terminating end-point equipment, etc. You will always have single points of failure. (PBCAK, even.)
If there is no information worth backing up on your fat-client, why do you have it? If it's just an access device, why not a thin client?
Amazingly, the US telephone system has shown itself to be fairly reliable. You are correct that "if" the entire US phone system crashed, there would be problems. Systems can be built to that level of reliability, however. Fortunately so far we have not had problems with the rather centralized root DNS servers going down too much, either -- though there was that problem about four years ago with the routing accident.
Indeed. Looking around the Internet at all the 'fat-clients' (i.e. computers) connected to it, I do not see things like worms (nimda, Code Red, etc.) taking out/degrading the system because all those fat-clients increase the number of targets. I am absolutely positive that if fat-client phones were installed in every household in the US that every person would dutifully make sure the fat-clients were always upgraded with the latest security fixes to all of the applications running on them, and that DDoS attacks would never happen.
You are correct that there are 'fewer targets' to take out in a thin-client system. However, by the same token, there are fewer targets to defend and your efforts can be concentrated on those.
As far as single points of failure and security issues go, take a look at the reliability and security of the current PSTN verses the current Internet. It is indeed possible to build a centralized system with 99.999% uptime.
And each person always has a single point of failure -- their own endpoint or phone. Which is more likely to maintain a 99.999% or better uptime -- the thin-client simple, stateless phone, or the fat-client service laden, stateful phone? (Which is more likely to crash, your calculator or your computer?)
If you looked at the AT&T phone described in the article, you would see that the applications are not moved at all. Only the data. And moving the data from end to end is the point of communications, after all.
It's simple.
Most people order phone services to get *services*. Most people aren't going to want to deal with a fat client, particularly if the fat client requires them to do all the maintenance on it.
Most people don't grow their own food. Most people don't build their own houses. Most people don't do their own medical work. People pay each other to take care of things.
A fat-client phone that requires most people to make sure it is up-to-date with the latest software, to patch security holes, to do their own trouble-shooting and debugging, etc. isn't going to go over with the majority of the populace. Geeks would love them probably, of course.
As long as paying for telephone service as a service is around, the model is going to be pushing for thin-clients because it simplifies the maintenance and service issues, and keeps the costs down.
The ideal architecture would allow for both fat and thin clients, to let those who want to deal with fat clients be able to use them.
There is also another reason why cheap, thin-clients are a good idea -- cost. A cheap, reliable PSTN phone is under $10 USD -- almost everyone can afford one of those. An IP phone with LCD display, CPU enough to handle real time VoIP, RAM, ethernet interface, DSPs, etc. is not cheap -- and the more complexity you cram into it, the more expensive it gets.
People want services, not do-it-yourself kits.
I see many folks advocating the immediate violent retaliation response, even before evidence is gathered and proof is assembled to identify the culprits. This is foolishness.
The people behind the attacks obviously had excellent planning and coordination, and were totally dedicated. The response has to have better planning and better coordination, and be just as dedicated (though not to the point of suicidal attackers.) Knee-jerk reactions against an enemy that has demonstrated such ability to plan are foolish -- the enemy may already have planned for them -- and nothing would look as foolish as throwing military might around only to miss time after time.
Reflexive, violent reactions are why a matador wins over a bull in a bull fight, despite the bull's larger size and greater strength. The attackers have demonstrated they have skill, planning, and patience enough to manage this attack -- the response *must* be just as planned and methodical to prevent them from doing any more.
This does not mean a nice response, this just means it must be an *effective* response.
There is more to this than just trying to find the leader behind the attack. The entire organization must be rooted out -- I would prefer to see that done first, in fact, so that the leader behind this can see that nothing of the organization, nothing he was in charge of, none of the people he led or trained will be left to survive his execution, that there will be no legacy left behind, while we rebuild and continue on.
Does anyone else think the folks foaming at the mouth about keeping the core of the network dumb are ultimately a bit silly? Next they'll be saying we should lobotomize our network and system administrators because the end-users will know enough to keep everything running.
The goal should be a cooperative, smart core, smart edge network.
I think the article is close to the target, but it's not quite there. It's not that authentication by itself is the key, it's the directory services that's part of the authentication which is the key.
... or not found. Heck, even forget the authentication bit -- anyone serious will have their own level of authentication and authorization, probably -- the first step in authentication of a person is *finding* their record.
.com domains, etc. Now suppose Microsoft had the equivalent of the root DNS servers, but for a directory of identities rather than domain names. How much would someone pay to have an identity of "John Doe" rather than "jdoe@someplace.onthe.net"... just type "John Doe" in your MS email program... Windows Messenger... goodness, maybe even your web browser. Now, wouldn't that be something? MS could let you type in 'identities' or keywords (i.e. "John Doe" "Amy Smith" "Microsoft Corporation" "Plumber" "Sun Microsystem") into your browser/Windows Messenger (off-topic, SIP blows chunks) and pop up perhaps their web page, a phone call, an instant message, or what not. Mmm. Do away with all that messy 'domain name' bit, or rather replace it with the Microsoft authenticated identities. Hmm. Interesting idea, isn't it?
Any one remember archie? The difference it made in using FTP? The key part of the phrase "You can find anything on the Internet" is *find*, it's not that any thing and every thing is on the Internet, it's that you can *find* it. (In some way, this is may be what Sun's CEO meant about not having any privacy -- there have always been records kept on people in all sorts of places, just now it is possible to find the records, index them, use them to *find* what you like, or *find* people that like certain things.)
File transfers have been around for a while now. Napster was interesting because it let people, tada, find the files they were looking for that other people have. eBay lets sellers find buyers. Social communities have formed up on the Interent because people have found other people who share similiar interests.
This probably seems all terribly boring, but think about it for a moment. If Microsoft does create a single sign-on authentication system, they will (potentially) have one of (if not the) largest online directory of people (competing with AOL.)
Authentication is just part of it. If Microsoft controls the directory services, they can control who (or what -- i.e. smart tags , etc.) can be found
Just look at the whole DNS root server mess, Network Solutions and such making money off of basically directory services. The battle over whether or not AOL will have an icon on the Windows desktop. Instant messaging -- which is basically the idea of presence (which appears to be one of the big buzzwords coming up), or rather, making it easier to be found.
Take a look at how much money is made from the sale of
Look, if you want to change the face of the network, the killer app is directory services. Online the map is literally the terrain -- the domain name system is the map we use to find things! That is, if you replaced the current DNS system with something new, that could change web browsing, email, all the services that depend on it to find people, places, and things.
I rather think the issue is do people want an introductory language for computer science or an introductory language that is going to be useful for getting jobs as programmers (software engineering, development.)
If one is teaching the pure theory side of OO, then something like Smalltalk is going to make more sense, perhaps. (Depending on what you want to teach, theory-wise.) C/C++ would be the worst because they are closer to the machine/hardware.
If one is teaching for the more practical/engineering side, then C/C++ and/or Java is going to make more sense, depending on your perception of where the job market is going.
It would be worth considering that should this scenario come true, it would have an interesting impact on the usages of free-vs-commercial operating systems. If the computer costs $15 to make, people are not going to be spending $80-$100 to put Windows Whatever on it.
.NET and similiar network-based hosting/application providers as a place to store data and applications on, with the $15 computers being treated as more of an access device than a computer -- the catch would be whether or not the monthly service charges or what have you over the long term were cheaper than buying a 'real'/non-disposable computer with software or not.
On the flip side, if the computers are 'disposable', then this might drive up interest in MS
With all the patenting of such basic processes and ideas, perhaps someone should patent the process of rendering an idea or concept into a document suitable for submission to a patent office. Perhaps patent the business model/process for making money by acting as a patent lawyer who prepares patent documents.
Has anyone patented the business model of filing patents on software and/or business concepts and then going around getting licensing fees for such patents without actually producing anything of use otherwise? That sounds like a distinct, just-as-patentable business concept as some of these others out there. Or perhaps patent the business model of controlling information distribution through patenting decoding technology to prevent third parties from making their own decodes...
So? Why should I have to do anything to gain the same benefits? Instead of saying, "If you incorporate, you get these benefits.", why not just have everyone start off with all the same benefits? Besides I see no problem with corporations gaining these benefits -- if the would stop complaining about the price tag that goes with them (i.e. additional regulation.)
It is still a case of government regulation in the marketplace, is it not? Is this not the very thing people who want a 'free market' protest against -- the "there is no place for government regulation in the marketplace" attitude?
Gasp! You are not saying that sometimes government regulation in the marketplace is a good thing, are you? You'll have all the rabid capitalists here reeling in shock!
Anyways, so why in a "free market" is there any *need* for government-created artificial entities at all?
By the very nature a corporation is a result of government regulation on a free market. A corporation is an artificial entity created by the government, through regulations and laws.
A business that goes crying to the government, "Whaa! The *real* free market is too scary to compete in! Let me incorporate! Protect me!" has little business complaining to the self-same government about being regulated for using the advantages of incorporation that are government regulated and government enforced and otherwise are government meddling in the balance of the market place.
I do not see how a free market should involve the idea of government-created artificial entities competing against individuals.
It is difficult to get people to make changes together, but that is only required because people keep insisting on having the same protocol end-to-end.
I believe this needs to change. There is zero reason for the transport layer to be bound to the data it is transporting, protocol-wise. The application should be able to request a certain type and quality of connection from the transport layer, without caring if the data is going over IPv4, IPv6, ATM, IPX, SNA, or what-have-you. There is *NO* reason for the application to care what it runs over as long as the desired quality of connection is satisfied. The transport should be an opaque layer.
Undoubtedly there are people who feel some reflexive horror at the idea of not being able to look at the transport layer. (In the scenario I am envisioning, there would be no traceroute, perhaps not even a ping as we know it on the Internet today. No 'addressing' that is bound to the protocol (i.e. IP addresses and port numbers), no way to probe/scan a network.) Oddly, I would suspect a fair number of these people also chastise Microsoft for leaving the default setting of MS software products for the least security, and thus requiring user effort to secure the machines. Yet we insist on using a network protocol that allows for casual network probing, port scanning, untraceable DOS attacks, spoofing, snooping, and so forth that requires effort to secure from the defaults. (i.e. firewalls, anti-spoofing filters, add-on encryption, etc.) Where are the people working on creating new transport layer solutions that by default are secure? Where are the equivalent of the folks who urge people to change from MS products due to security reasons to urge people to change from IP for security reasons? But I digress.
My personal curiousity about this matter is wondering about the network that will replace the Internet. I do not believe that in the relatively short time computers have been around that people have already managed to develop 'The' network -- the Internet is just one of the first.
Any opinions on how long it will be until the Internet is either replaced by something new or it evolves/grows into something sufficiently different to be incompatible with what it is today? Given that the Internet only took a bare decade to go from backroom to mainstream, and that the rate of change has only been accelerating, it would be easy to believe that the Internet could find itself being replaced by something new in five to ten years. Just what that is, of course, is hard to say. I would prefer to see a new network evolve that was truly decentralized and dynamic (no central DNS servers to monopolize, no central authority required for addressing, real quality of service, etc.) If I had time, I would probably try to flesh out the ideas for how to build such a network someday.
My personal dark horse choices for setting up new standards/protocols (though not necessarily ones I would favor) in the near future are Nokia and Sony. My private guess is that in a few years those will be the two companies fighting it out for control of standards/access to data. (i.e. people will be accessing the network through cellphones/PDAs or through their home entertainment equipment/PSX[23...n].)
The copyright notice on the book *is* the author asking you not to copy the book. If the author did not mind, the author could release it into the public domain -- the copyright notice is indication that the author did not release into the public domain.
So if an author wrote a book and said to you, "I spent five years writing this, and I produced this hard copy. If you would like to read it, please buy it and promise not to copy it." you would have no problems lying to the author by agreeing to the terms and then copying it?
Who's forcing you to buy anything?
If I put a jar of candy out on my desk and say, "If you enjoy a piece of candy, please contribute 5 cents." You may steal the candy of course, but I would say that is unethical. (Even if you claim that candy is not-ownable, or common, or cheap, someone has still gone to the effort to make it available to you in this instance.) You may choose to ignore the sign, take all the candy you want, etc., then still claim to be ethical. Other people may or may not agree with your definition of ethical. If I set a book on the shelves, stamp it with a copyright notice, and put a sign out saying, "If you would like to read a book, please buy it and not copy it." is there a difference? (Assuming in neither case is anyone or anything forcing you to eat a piece of candy or read a book.)
This is not a matter of law. There could be no laws governing the above situations (i.e. no property laws or no copyright laws.) This is a matter of ethical consideration -- someone has put forth effort to make something available, and has indicated that they would like an exchange in return. One may rip them off if one wishes.
YMMV.
I am just arguing differently from the author of the essay that IP rights are a government created priviledge. I am making the claim that one can create a (perhaps reasonable with some luck) implementation of IP rights through the use of contractual agreements.
You are correct that under such a system that if you legally hear a piece of music you haven't specifically agree to, you can do what you want with it. If this was the only system available, I suspect that contracts would be made with the distributors/broadcasters/etc. of music such that your odds of listening to music without having had passed some sort of agreement would be minimized.
(The ultimate contract is, perhaps, the laws of the country say this is so, and if one wishes to live under the laws of the country, one agrees to them. Otherwise, one has the option of living in another country without such laws. While it is perhaps unfortunate that one cannot choose the country one is born into, that is just a happenstance of life that one can only do so much about.)
By your agreement theory, the only person the author should be able to punish is me, not innocent people I happened to communicate with.
Um. So? Why should innocent people be punished? I missed something there.
IP rights are not the same things are copyright or patent laws -- those are (perhaps questionable) implementations. The way I am interpreting IP rights are merely that one can treat a certain piece or instance of information as being subject to handling constraints as set forth by the originator. I am just stating that one can create IP rights, or a reasonable facsimilie, through contracts and agreements.
Is there an ethical relationship, however? Beyond that, when one checks out that book, and the first thing listed inside the cover is the copyright notice, does one ignore it, agree with it, or return the book to the library unread? Most libraries I have seen have nice, big signs over their copiers reminding people of copyright issues and fair use. Out of curiosity, when one receives their library card or access, did it come with a list of rules of use of library materials, like copyright issues? If so, they have agreed upon use. No one is forcing them to read the material.
An interesting essay. It makes a statement that Intellectual Property rights are a 'monopoly priviledge granted by the government.' (Assuming for the sake of argument that monopolies are inherently bad things, and that governments can actually grant priviledges -- more accurately, the government restricts others.) If one believes that IP exists wholly as a government illusion, very well.
I am not sure I rather agree with the argument that information is universal. If everyone knew everything, we would not be in this situation, would we? Even if we make the assumption as given in the previous essay mentioned "Anarchism Triumphant", that all information can be reduced to some indefinitely long bitstream (i.e. just a number) there are far more uninteresting numbers than there are interesting ones. If creation is merely a process of discovering bitstreams/numbers, there is still an element of effort in that process -- if everyone could create (not the same as duplicate) any piece of IP trivially, then this would also not be an issue, but not everyone can. As far as the statement of "You cannot own information without owning other people." goes, that is rather stretching things. If I were to own a piece of IP, say, a piece of music, does this automatically give me total control over everyone who hears it? Ridiculous. Depending on the IP right stance taken, though, it might credit to me control over what they do with the IP they have received from me -- which is not the same thing as owning them completely.
I would argue that IP rights exist ultimately as an agreement between parties. As long as I have a right to NOT produce or communicate the ideas I have come up with, as long as I have some right to privacy, then I can choose when and to whom I speak to -- if I speak my mind to one person, that does not require me to speak to all! If I offer to a second party, "I will tell you of the IP I have thought of, if and only if you give your word you will not repeat or reproduce it to any one else without my explicit permission," that is the creation of IP rights in essence. The second party may choose to refuse to accept the conditions of the transaction, but should the second part accept, then they are bound ethically to respect the my IP rights as I have claimed them. If the second party breaks their word, then that is reprehensible -- if transaction was made as a legal contract, enforceable.
If a person pays money for a piece of music, writing, video, etc. that is marked "copyrighted" than that should be regarded as an implicit agreement, an implicit contract, to abide by the copyright laws. If one does not believe in IP rights, then one should, ethically, not purchase or use any copyrighted material! One may try to pursuade others to not use or make copyrighted material, or argue against the concept. It may very well be that IP rights are not 'rights' (i.e. inherent and/or universal,) but even if so, they are trivially fashioned out of mutual agreement between consenting parties, existing as a social construct, perhaps as a legal contract construct -- the only way to not have IP is to prevent people from making agreements between each other! The tyrrany that would prevent individuals or groups from doing such would be a sight to see indeed.
One may claim that if I have thought of a piece of IP, then I should not restrict distribution of it, as it is a universal (sic) thing. Fine -- you think of it for yourself then, if it universal -- you do not need someone else to tell you what you already know.
(Note the above does not touch on patents, just copyright. Patents are not justified by the above as there is no implied contract between two simultaneous independent creators, or independent duplication.)
They have some interesting ideas for laser projection systems as well.