First, that the creators intention matters a damn.
Second, you assume you know what the inventors intentions were.
Consider, perhaps PGP was intended to be used to protect human rights and lives, and nobody thought, at the time, that crypto would be used by bad guys. Now, that seems far fetched, because everyone knows crypto is used by bad guys. Hm. So, in that case, if its well known that crypto can be used by bad guys then either these guys are evil f*****, or, just maybe, they thought long and hard about the pros and cons and realised that crypto is a good thing for this society. Conversely, perhaps Boeing originally designed the aircraft specifically for the effect of flying into buildings, and only later thought of putting people on them. You just dont know. The military effectiveness of aircraft was spotted right from the get-go. Has there been a case before where a plane was used as a weapon of attack? Anyone? Class? Japan?
So everyone knows that planes can be used to kill people, and crypto can be used by bad guys. So the orignal point still stands: we all know that both can be used for good or evil, but none of the press is calling for Boeing's head on a plate.
Basically, I am for removing "privacy" as a right provided:
Senators, President, Police, every government official must be video-taped 24 hours a day. We have the technology to do it.
Anyone can record anything, anywhere.
All public cameras must be on the net, and publicly available.
Either you believe in the right to privacy, or you do not. There is no middle ground. You dont want to see yourself fucking your wife on the internet, tough. But since anyone can see anyone on the internet, its not likely that they'll pick you, is it? Unless its you fucking your 8yr old daughter...
People tell me that the president has to do tough negotiation. Whats to negotiate? Privacy only exists so that one group can pay more for better information and then fuck the other group. What if all sides came to the table knowing everything about each other. How about consensus?
Personally, I do not believe in privacy. And before you post about how this, that, or other world economy or system would collapse, try and be imaginative and create an alternative system to replace it that would work much better. Can you do that? Or do you want your rights, and your nikes?
It amazes me that someone who posts here regularly can believe for a second that you can enforce a law that makes strong crypto illegal. If you make cryptograpy illegal, all that you will do is make the practice of stenography (hiding the information) much more robust.
How will you legally be able to charge someone for having a large AVI file that you *suspect* has an email encrypted in the bottom bit of every 32 bits? Or an mp3 file?
This law is not enforcable. Fact. End of story. You know that. I know that. Either the FBI knows that, or the FBI is incompetent. Either way, dont allow it to happen.
Who made the Constitution?
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
A few years ago, a land of people rose up in arms against an oppressive government. All where prepared to, and many did, lay down their lives, and won their freedom. Then they wrote a document called the Constitution of the United States of America.
I am not american. But I would die to maintain those rights. Americans, it seems, would not. You are fat and happy, and prepared to give it all up, one right at a time.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
So lets be clear about this. America has a constitution, but you believe that the rights written in the constitution only apply to Americans. If it turns out that americans were responsible for the attacks, will you be advocating nuking them and their surrounding villages? Or just having them killed in the night?
Americans dont know how lucky they are to have the constitution. It would be wonderful if it applied to everyone on the planet.
We have concluded that the special Rules of Engagement in force at Ruby Ridge violated the Constitution of the United States
Good job the FBI had Waco to occupy the press while the Department of Justice's report slipped out quietly.
Re:You think this is war? I'LL show you War!
on
Our New Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 1
We didn't try to punish them for all the horrendous things they had done up until that point
50,000 dead by radiation poisoning isnt punishment? I expect you believe the political spin that it was done to save lives. It was done to demonstrate to the world that it worked. A total of 125,000 dead to make a point.
This is what the "terrorists" are fighting against. The complete arrogance of american foreign policy.
We are now seeing "terrorism" because america has demonstrated that it can destroy any nation that is prepared to take a stand against it. It uses its military to force compliance with laws, and then uses those laws to bleed countries dry of resources using the IMF, WTO and WIPO. Death from a US supplied Israeli rocket, is still death. Death from lack of AIDS medicine because its illegal to manufacture it cheaply is still death. Death from starvation because the country has to export its harvest to pay world bank debts is still death. Only the west makes this distinction between "war" deaths and terrorist deaths. So the war is going "underground". Nothing has changed. This isnt some new group that hate America. This is just a better organised resistance. Many nations of the world HATE america for good reasons. They are just getting smarter about dealing with you.
As ever, dont get me wrong. I find the attack of civilians absolutely appalling and disgusting. My heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones and those who had to suffer the immediate horror. However, as those of us in Europe (think IRA, ETA) know, violence only begets more violence. If the american government chooses to retaliate, they had better make sure they kill every non-white person on the planet, because there are still plenty of weapons left in the world.
And I say the american government, because at the end of the day, it is the civilians who are dying in the USA, Palestine, Israel, Ireland, Spain, France, Bosnia, Serbia, Indonesia, Chile, Vietnam, Namibia, need I go on?
The West would do better find out why it is hated, than to create a whole new generation of children who hate even more.
Just remember, its ok to kill 125,000 civilians, but only if you are already at war. Clearly these "terrorists" forgot to declare war, or even register as a country!
As for terrorism, what must it feel like to have americans pouring napalm on your children, or to be denied AIDS medicine because the WIPO is backed by the US military, or not be able to feed your family because you cannot resow a crop of seeds because they are patented.
Wake up.
Oh yeah, and its ok to call for "kill the ragheads", but you cant criticise american foreign policy without getting modded down as flamebait. Re-read the second paragraph and see if thats flamebait or if its "food for thought" (ha, thats ironic).
Just remember, its ok to kill 125,000 civilians, but only if you are already at war. Clearly these "terrorists" forgot to declare war, or even register as a country!
As for terrorism, what must it feel like to have americans pouring napalm on your children, or to be denied AIDS medicine because the WIPO is backed by the US military, or not be able to feed your family because you cannot resow a crop of seeds because they are patented.
You have to consider the possibility that there are some people whose way of life is fundamentally incompatable with yours. I believe that anyone capable of organizing the hijacking of several commerical airplanes and using them as weapons against both civillian and military targets in an unprovoked sneak attack is not someone that I can make amends with without making an unacceptable compromise of my integrity.
But on the other hand it is compatible with your way of life to:
a. Drop an atom bomb and kill 125,000 civilians at hiroshima to satisfy a military objective. (Thats ok because they started it so it wasnt "unprovoked" or "sneaky").
b. Napalm children in vietnam. (because you didnt like communists).
c. Bomb civilians in Iraq after providing their leaders with weapons to bomb civilians in Iran after giving F-14's to Iran to bomb civilians elsewhere. (because you wanted oil).
d. invade and assasinate the indonesian government. (because the IMF and WTO want mineral rights).
I appologise if you arent a citizen of the "Free World".
Remember, you can bomb civilians, as long as it isnt unprovoked and not sneaky. Well ask many citizens of this planet, and they might argue that its not "unprovoked".
What did he say after he killed 125,000 civilians by bombing Hiroshima?
Did he say "its ok because these civilians supported a government that we were at war with?"
How did he justify killing civilians, deliberately? With an atom bomb. That killed 70,000 instantly and 55,000 later from radiation poisoning?
So the question is, are civilians of an aggressive nation accountable for the actions of its government? If so, then Hiroshima was ok, but then so was this attack.
If not, of course, then I'm sure the US will happily bring to trial, or assasinate, its own diplomats who were fully aware of the civilian deaths in central america, africa, vietnam, indonesia, iraq...
The guy responsible for the deaths in central america (the disappeared) is about to take his place in the senate, I believe. Start with him, why dont you.
Dont get me wrong, I think the deaths are totally unacceptable. The question is, "How could they have been avoided?". Is there a change in US foreign policy that might reduce the suffering of the rest of the world cause by american aggression?
Potentially MSVC is little different than emacs or visual slick edit in providing a fancy editor over the top of command line tools. Indeed in managing a large project I find MSVC restrictive, and I'm contemplating moving to a bash script.
However, take Together, from togethersoft.com. Sure, this wraps the java compilers, but its hardly just that. It does what only GUIs can do: talk to my visual brain in things it can understand. Literally, it augments my thinking, by doing what my brain cant: converting textual code into visual representations.
So the FBI has the right to own decryption and circumvention software, but the citizens do not.
Doesnt the US have an amendment or something to do with the right to bear arms? And isnt it specifically so that the citizens of the US will never be enslaved by a corrupt or totalitarian government? And isnt decryption software exactly the same thing in the modern age? (guns werent just about protecting your life, but also about protecting your lively hood, your property, your money. try doing that if one side has technology which is illegal for the other).
So, why isnt anyone challinging DMCA on 2nd (is it 2nd?) amendment grounds?
"Why have a wired fridge? you're not interested in eating the fridge; you're interested in the food. the food ought to be intelligent."
"Can I interest Sir in a piece of my rump?" - Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (ok, Restaurant at the End of the Universe, nitpickers). Smart food that wants to be eaten, so you have no moral reason not to!
Absolutely Authentication is the key to everything.
Most computer users do not want to remember a bunch of passwords.
Most users will use an easy system despite rumoured risks.
Most computer users do not understand nor care about the security risks
Most computer users, when it comes to privacy, trust big corporations more than they trust their own government and certainly more than "evil hackers".
"There is not a widespread need for third-party authentication." There is.
The article was dead on about Authentication, but all/. can focus on was how it is wrong about NCs. What an irony.
Most web developers are troubled by finding good solutions to authenticating users, and will use a drop-in solution if it is available, especially if it makes Microsoft liable for errors (or if users have given up all rights by using Passport because of the EULA).
I'd like to respond to various postings I've read here. Whatever your opinions on Network Computing, the article is dead on about Authentication. First, it is the key to monopoly. Second, we are all incredibly easily diverted. We are all failing to get the message about the GPL attack being a diversion because we are all diverted by the NC message in the very article calling our attention to the divertion!
I use the computer a lot. I use it for online banking on all my bank accounts. I use it for bying all my hardware, my CDs, and my books. I am sick sick sick of remembering passwords and I will embrace any technology where the relative risk of putting my credit card details online offsets the day-to-day drudgery of typing in my details every day. Since all my credit cards have online fraud protection, I dont see any problem putting my details into hailstorm. Or rather, I dont see any more problem with it than I do with my Ralphs grocery store card recording what I buy to eat. And neither will most people.
On security, the average user doesnt share our concerns because they literally do not understand what you are saying. jcr says, "Like I'm going to trust an outfit that puts a Turing-complete interpreter in a MAIL CLIENT, and gives it full access to both the filesystem and the outgoing mail queue for ANYTHING related to security." My Dad does not know what you are talking about. My Dad does, however, use online banking.
Now, as a web developer, I have the problem of logging in users and managing sensitive personal data. If I make it to easy for someone who has forgotten their password to get back in, then I run the risk of letting in the wrong person and giving out (in our case) very personal details. If I make it to hard, those same valuable details will suddenly be lost to the legitimate owner, negating their time and investment. One solution is to have a very thorough and very expensive customer support team. A second solution is give up authentication to Microsoft, thereby making Microsoft liable for any breaches. As a business, the ability to give up accountability and hence responsibility is far more valuable than the time and effort I save on development.
So, what is the alternative?
An alternative to Microsoft's hailstorm is one that does basically the same thing but allows for more than one service provider. The service providers then agree to trust each other or not. Just like my local grocery store doesnt take American Express, sure Amazon's IAA server might not take one of my credentials, but I do have another.
Who do you trust with these details? Who has servers to host these services? Where is the software? ISPs and banks. Whether banks would agree to store logons to other banks is a question for them, but they'd soon see the value when faced with competition. Just like my Wells Fargo VISA payment system will accept cards from Mastercard and other VISA banks, similarly my Wells Fargo IAA server will accept authentications from Union Bank.
The question is what software will this be running on, and will it be open source/gpl? It makes sense to be, since open source is much more secure. Plus, it would be nice if people could start their own servers. They might not be trusted by mainstream servers, but they would be trusted by each other.
"We went to end users, rather than looking at just sales numbers, and asked them what servers they had bought over the past three months and what operating system they had installed on it over the same period," Hewitt said. "There was no question about whether Linux was preinstalled or not, we simply asked about new shipments and this is what we found."
"While I accept my results may not include some desktop and workstations configured as Linux servers, I simply do not believe that Linux is shipping on 25 percent or more of all new servers and I just cannot believe the IDC figures," Hewitt said. "They are simply pushing the envelope and overstating what the operating system is actually doing."
A recently released Gartner Dataquest report, sponsored by several companies including Microsoft, found that just 8.6 percent of server shipments in the U.S. during the third quarter of 2000 were Linux-based.
For those of you (cafeman) not familiar with the use of spin, let me point out how the first paragraph seems to indicate that the figures in the second paragraphs are what Microsoft want you to believe (i.e that only 8.6% of servers are actually running linux). They are clear about how they interviewed people about their usage.
However, note that they are repeatedly very very sepecific about the word shipment. By describing their interviewing process, they lead you to beleive that these usage results are the ones they are referring to when they say 8.6%.
In fact, it is perfectly possible that they have two sets of numbers and know full well that 25% of servers are running linux and at the same time state, correctly, that only 8.6% of systems are shipped: "I simply do not believe that Linux is shipping on 25 percent".
So, given that a) they are paid by Microsoft and b) they are very deliberate in the choice of misleading words while at the same time specifically avoiding saying "only 8.6% are running linux", I'd be inclined to say thats its the usual manufactured statistics.
I've just returned from six years in the California to be part of a startup that will have a very positive impact on peoples lives. Since returning I have been very much more frustrated and have had a gnawing disatisfaction around creativity and ideas. I have recently realised it is due to our internet connection speed. In the US, my worst connection was at home, a 1.5Mbit ADSL line. In the UK, my best, at work, is a 64kbit ISDN line.
In the US, any bit of information I wanted was a few clicks away. I could use the internet as an extension of my memory. In the UK, each click now takes between seconds and minutes to download, so something that was once a few seconds away, is now several minutes away, especially when I dont remember the exact series of links to follow and have to back track. One might think that it would make the internet just a slower part of my memory. However, the delay is such that it no longer plays any part in my memory - it is too slow to participate in my short-term thinking process. I am having to learn old methods of memory retention, and use "Favourites" a lot more!
This is pure theory, of course, but it is the only explanation I have. If I, an adult, am having this problem, what effect will it have on a child?
I'm living in Europe right now and developing software. I'm very concerned about US Software Patent law making it over here.
This old article indicates that we may be in for a shock in a few months. I dont fancy the DMCA either.
I think the USA wouldnt be too worried about such things because you at least have a consitution where, in theory, a private citizen can overturn a law which violates it. In Europe, we'd have no such recourse against oppressive foreign governments.
However, since the US consitution would come first, regardless of any international treaty, that would allow the US to get "off the hook" with any foreign enforcement. So I wonder why any foreign government would join a treaty when the US clearly cannot enforce their side of the bargain.
Slashdot Mirror
First, that the creators intention matters a damn.
Second, you assume you know what the inventors intentions were.
Consider, perhaps PGP was intended to be used to protect human rights and lives, and nobody thought, at the time, that crypto would be used by bad guys. Now, that seems far fetched, because everyone knows crypto is used by bad guys. Hm. So, in that case, if its well known that crypto can be used by bad guys then either these guys are evil f*****, or, just maybe, they thought long and hard about the pros and cons and realised that crypto is a good thing for this society. Conversely, perhaps Boeing originally designed the aircraft specifically for the effect of flying into buildings, and only later thought of putting people on them. You just dont know. The military effectiveness of aircraft was spotted right from the get-go. Has there been a case before where a plane was used as a weapon of attack? Anyone? Class? Japan?
So everyone knows that planes can be used to kill people, and crypto can be used by bad guys. So the orignal point still stands: we all know that both can be used for good or evil, but none of the press is calling for Boeing's head on a plate.
Basically, I am for removing "privacy" as a right provided:
Senators, President, Police, every government official must be video-taped 24 hours a day. We have the technology to do it.
Anyone can record anything, anywhere.
All public cameras must be on the net, and publicly available.
Either you believe in the right to privacy, or you do not. There is no middle ground. You dont want to see yourself fucking your wife on the internet, tough. But since anyone can see anyone on the internet, its not likely that they'll pick you, is it? Unless its you fucking your 8yr old daughter...
People tell me that the president has to do tough negotiation. Whats to negotiate? Privacy only exists so that one group can pay more for better information and then fuck the other group. What if all sides came to the table knowing everything about each other. How about consensus?
Personally, I do not believe in privacy. And before you post about how this, that, or other world economy or system would collapse, try and be imaginative and create an alternative system to replace it that would work much better. Can you do that? Or do you want your rights, and your nikes?
It amazes me that someone who posts here regularly can believe for a second that you can enforce a law that makes strong crypto illegal. If you make cryptograpy illegal, all that you will do is make the practice of stenography (hiding the information) much more robust.
How will you legally be able to charge someone for having a large AVI file that you *suspect* has an email encrypted in the bottom bit of every 32 bits? Or an mp3 file?
This law is not enforcable. Fact. End of story. You know that. I know that. Either the FBI knows that, or the FBI is incompetent. Either way, dont allow it to happen.
I am not american. But I would die to maintain those rights. Americans, it seems, would not. You are fat and happy, and prepared to give it all up, one right at a time.
Americans dont know how lucky they are to have the constitution. It would be wonderful if it applied to everyone on the planet.
But of course, they dont even apply it to themselves: read the ruby ridge report.
Good job the FBI had Waco to occupy the press while the Department of Justice's report slipped out quietly.
50,000 dead by radiation poisoning isnt punishment? I expect you believe the political spin that it was done to save lives. It was done to demonstrate to the world that it worked. A total of 125,000 dead to make a point.
This is what the "terrorists" are fighting against. The complete arrogance of american foreign policy.
We are now seeing "terrorism" because america has demonstrated that it can destroy any nation that is prepared to take a stand against it. It uses its military to force compliance with laws, and then uses those laws to bleed countries dry of resources using the IMF, WTO and WIPO. Death from a US supplied Israeli rocket, is still death. Death from lack of AIDS medicine because its illegal to manufacture it cheaply is still death. Death from starvation because the country has to export its harvest to pay world bank debts is still death. Only the west makes this distinction between "war" deaths and terrorist deaths. So the war is going "underground". Nothing has changed. This isnt some new group that hate America. This is just a better organised resistance. Many nations of the world HATE america for good reasons. They are just getting smarter about dealing with you.
As ever, dont get me wrong. I find the attack of civilians absolutely appalling and disgusting. My heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones and those who had to suffer the immediate horror. However, as those of us in Europe (think IRA, ETA) know, violence only begets more violence. If the american government chooses to retaliate, they had better make sure they kill every non-white person on the planet, because there are still plenty of weapons left in the world.
And I say the american government, because at the end of the day, it is the civilians who are dying in the USA, Palestine, Israel, Ireland, Spain, France, Bosnia, Serbia, Indonesia, Chile, Vietnam, Namibia, need I go on?
The West would do better find out why it is hated, than to create a whole new generation of children who hate even more.
So what you are saying, is that it was ok to kill 125,000 people because otherwise America was going to kill a lot more! Great thinking!
Just remember, its ok to kill 125,000 civilians, but only if you are already at war. Clearly these "terrorists" forgot to declare war, or even register as a country!
As for terrorism, what must it feel like to have americans pouring napalm on your children, or to be denied AIDS medicine because the WIPO is backed by the US military, or not be able to feed your family because you cannot resow a crop of seeds because they are patented.
Wake up.
Oh yeah, and its ok to call for "kill the ragheads", but you cant criticise american foreign policy without getting modded down as flamebait. Re-read the second paragraph and see if thats flamebait or if its "food for thought" (ha, thats ironic).
As for terrorism, what must it feel like to have americans pouring napalm on your children, or to be denied AIDS medicine because the WIPO is backed by the US military, or not be able to feed your family because you cannot resow a crop of seeds because they are patented.
Wake up.
But on the other hand it is compatible with your way of life to:
a. Drop an atom bomb and kill 125,000 civilians at hiroshima to satisfy a military objective. (Thats ok because they started it so it wasnt "unprovoked" or "sneaky").
b. Napalm children in vietnam. (because you didnt like communists).
c. Bomb civilians in Iraq after providing their leaders with weapons to bomb civilians in Iran after giving F-14's to Iran to bomb civilians elsewhere. (because you wanted oil).
d. invade and assasinate the indonesian government. (because the IMF and WTO want mineral rights).
I appologise if you arent a citizen of the "Free World".
Remember, you can bomb civilians, as long as it isnt unprovoked and not sneaky. Well ask many citizens of this planet, and they might argue that its not "unprovoked".
Did he say "its ok because these civilians supported a government that we were at war with?"
How did he justify killing civilians, deliberately? With an atom bomb. That killed 70,000 instantly and 55,000 later from radiation poisoning?
So the question is, are civilians of an aggressive nation accountable for the actions of its government? If so, then Hiroshima was ok, but then so was this attack.
If not, of course, then I'm sure the US will happily bring to trial, or assasinate, its own diplomats who were fully aware of the civilian deaths in central america, africa, vietnam, indonesia, iraq...
The guy responsible for the deaths in central america (the disappeared) is about to take his place in the senate, I believe. Start with him, why dont you.
Dont get me wrong, I think the deaths are totally unacceptable. The question is, "How could they have been avoided?". Is there a change in US foreign policy that might reduce the suffering of the rest of the world cause by american aggression?
However, take Together, from togethersoft.com. Sure, this wraps the java compilers, but its hardly just that. It does what only GUIs can do: talk to my visual brain in things it can understand. Literally, it augments my thinking, by doing what my brain cant: converting textual code into visual representations.
One day, all development tools will be this way.
However, writing that they could sue the guy because he wrote code that runs on their hardware is rediculous.
Doesnt the US have an amendment or something to do with the right to bear arms? And isnt it specifically so that the citizens of the US will never be enslaved by a corrupt or totalitarian government? And isnt decryption software exactly the same thing in the modern age? (guns werent just about protecting your life, but also about protecting your lively hood, your property, your money. try doing that if one side has technology which is illegal for the other).
So, why isnt anyone challinging DMCA on 2nd (is it 2nd?) amendment grounds?
IANAL.
mono1 (mn)
n. Informal
Infectious mononucleosis.
Well obviously the light goes out when you close the fridge door, so the web cam has to take an image before it closes and then show you that. Duh.
"Can I interest Sir in a piece of my rump?" - Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (ok, Restaurant at the End of the Universe, nitpickers). Smart food that wants to be eaten, so you have no moral reason not to!
Absolutely Authentication is the key to everything.
Most computer users do not want to remember a bunch of passwords.
Most users will use an easy system despite rumoured risks.
Most computer users do not understand nor care about the security risks
Most computer users, when it comes to privacy, trust big corporations more than they trust their own government and certainly more than "evil hackers".
"There is not a widespread need for third-party authentication." There is.
The article was dead on about Authentication, but all /. can focus on was how it is wrong about NCs. What an irony.
Most web developers are troubled by finding good solutions to authenticating users, and will use a drop-in solution if it is available, especially if it makes Microsoft liable for errors (or if users have given up all rights by using Passport because of the EULA).
I'd like to respond to various postings I've read here. Whatever your opinions on Network Computing, the article is dead on about Authentication. First, it is the key to monopoly. Second, we are all incredibly easily diverted. We are all failing to get the message about the GPL attack being a diversion because we are all diverted by the NC message in the very article calling our attention to the divertion!
I use the computer a lot. I use it for online banking on all my bank accounts. I use it for bying all my hardware, my CDs, and my books. I am sick sick sick of remembering passwords and I will embrace any technology where the relative risk of putting my credit card details online offsets the day-to-day drudgery of typing in my details every day. Since all my credit cards have online fraud protection, I dont see any problem putting my details into hailstorm. Or rather, I dont see any more problem with it than I do with my Ralphs grocery store card recording what I buy to eat. And neither will most people.
On security, the average user doesnt share our concerns because they literally do not understand what you are saying. jcr says, "Like I'm going to trust an outfit that puts a Turing-complete interpreter in a MAIL CLIENT, and gives it full access to both the filesystem and the outgoing mail queue for ANYTHING related to security." My Dad does not know what you are talking about. My Dad does, however, use online banking.
Now, as a web developer, I have the problem of logging in users and managing sensitive personal data. If I make it to easy for someone who has forgotten their password to get back in, then I run the risk of letting in the wrong person and giving out (in our case) very personal details. If I make it to hard, those same valuable details will suddenly be lost to the legitimate owner, negating their time and investment. One solution is to have a very thorough and very expensive customer support team. A second solution is give up authentication to Microsoft, thereby making Microsoft liable for any breaches. As a business, the ability to give up accountability and hence responsibility is far more valuable than the time and effort I save on development.
So, what is the alternative?
An alternative to Microsoft's hailstorm is one that does basically the same thing but allows for more than one service provider. The service providers then agree to trust each other or not. Just like my local grocery store doesnt take American Express, sure Amazon's IAA server might not take one of my credentials, but I do have another.
Who do you trust with these details? Who has servers to host these services? Where is the software? ISPs and banks. Whether banks would agree to store logons to other banks is a question for them, but they'd soon see the value when faced with competition. Just like my Wells Fargo VISA payment system will accept cards from Mastercard and other VISA banks, similarly my Wells Fargo IAA server will accept authentications from Union Bank.
The question is what software will this be running on, and will it be open source/gpl? It makes sense to be, since open source is much more secure. Plus, it would be nice if people could start their own servers. They might not be trusted by mainstream servers, but they would be trusted by each other.
Jamie
"We went to end users, rather than looking at just sales numbers, and asked them what servers they had bought over the past three months and what operating system they had installed on it over the same period," Hewitt said. "There was no question about whether Linux was preinstalled or not, we simply asked about new shipments and this is what we found."
"While I accept my results may not include some desktop and workstations configured as Linux servers, I simply do not believe that Linux is shipping on 25 percent or more of all new servers and I just cannot believe the IDC figures," Hewitt said. "They are simply pushing the envelope and overstating what the operating system is actually doing."
A recently released Gartner Dataquest report, sponsored by several companies including Microsoft, found that just 8.6 percent of server shipments in the U.S. during the third quarter of 2000 were Linux-based.
For those of you (cafeman) not familiar with the use of spin, let me point out how the first paragraph seems to indicate that the figures in the second paragraphs are what Microsoft want you to believe (i.e that only 8.6% of servers are actually running linux). They are clear about how they interviewed people about their usage.
However, note that they are repeatedly very very sepecific about the word shipment. By describing their interviewing process, they lead you to beleive that these usage results are the ones they are referring to when they say 8.6%.
In fact, it is perfectly possible that they have two sets of numbers and know full well that 25% of servers are running linux and at the same time state, correctly, that only 8.6% of systems are shipped: "I simply do not believe that Linux is shipping on 25 percent".
So, given that a) they are paid by Microsoft and b) they are very deliberate in the choice of misleading words while at the same time specifically avoiding saying "only 8.6% are running linux", I'd be inclined to say thats its the usual manufactured statistics.
Jamie
In the US, any bit of information I wanted was a few clicks away. I could use the internet as an extension of my memory. In the UK, each click now takes between seconds and minutes to download, so something that was once a few seconds away, is now several minutes away, especially when I dont remember the exact series of links to follow and have to back track. One might think that it would make the internet just a slower part of my memory. However, the delay is such that it no longer plays any part in my memory - it is too slow to participate in my short-term thinking process. I am having to learn old methods of memory retention, and use "Favourites" a lot more!
This is pure theory, of course, but it is the only explanation I have. If I, an adult, am having this problem, what effect will it have on a child?
This old article indicates that we may be in for a shock in a few months. I dont fancy the DMCA either.
I think the USA wouldnt be too worried about such things because you at least have a consitution where, in theory, a private citizen can overturn a law which violates it. In Europe, we'd have no such recourse against oppressive foreign governments.
However, since the US consitution would come first, regardless of any international treaty, that would allow the US to get "off the hook" with any foreign enforcement. So I wonder why any foreign government would join a treaty when the US clearly cannot enforce their side of the bargain.