Who's to say that the transactions monitored will not belong to a political opponent?
Who's to say that Ashcroft doesn't hanker after a database that describes his domestic political enemies to the last little detail? Exhuming Hoover?
Re:For those wondering what dotgnu is...
on
DotGNU Meet-a-thon
·
· Score: 1
I think that MS cannot - and does not - have the resources alone to manage sort of PK infrastructure required of this system to work. I don't think they realise the *network* issues involved in managing the PK authentication of x million users trying to authenticate against every damn piece of documentation/application that you will/might use. A billion documents? A million applications? Given either the latency of the net or the sluggishness/crapness of MS servers/system and the fact that they will try and do this over HTTP, the whole system will die. Juarez - the system originator - says that it will take a 100 million machines sold before the system takes hold. I think the system will be unsatisfactory before it gets to that limit. I've used passport and it's crap; I expect nothing less of the new authentication system. Joe Public will get pissed if they can't listen to Emninen's latest song without a microseconds' blink and I think the system that M$ will use to support palladium *will* tank. History is with me here; MS has never run a satisfactory public service. Period.
I think the only way to do this properly is to design and run a PK infrastructure with the help of a public body such as the W3C or IETF, who should be involved in designing and maintaining a PK support infrastructure. Much like the X500 directory system but directed solely at PK management. We should be there to *help* M$ in their quest to help their customers. Of course, we should do this to help ourselves.
Therefore, quid pro quo, if the management system is owned/managed/run by the public domain, the Palladium system should be commoditized i.e have an open API, and any apps that the system wil run, should be signed against *any* publicly trusted body. Maybe even the GNU project - or even Slash - can become such a body.
Remember, Paladium is at the "bluesky" stage: we should get in there and get what *we* the unwashed want. Is the EFF involved? Juarez says they're open to *everyone*. We should at least take advantage of that rather than endless threads whinging about it.
Essentially, we should design something which embraces and extends Palladium. A neat reversal, no?
1. All transactions over the internet 2. Sucking up to Hollywood. 3. Corralling the competition into some corner where they go away and die. This includes:
1. All other commercial companies
2. The GPL
3. *All* home-grown startups.
Cringely had an interesting article about Rockefeller "pulling up the ladder behind him" after he'd made his millions, ensuring no competitors. I think that, in some corner of Redmond, this is being considered. Maybe this is Gate's stab at killing off the competition. Of course, innovation will die but who said we had to have innovation to have profit? In fact, given the wild Pleistocene-type software developments of the past 15 years, maybe we're about to settle down to a more stable phase of evolutionary development in the computing world.
If this is true, I believe that we are currently living through a Golden Age of Computing; nothing like we see now will ever happen again.
To quote Jamie Zawinski talking about the RIAA and the webcasters: "Your job, Mr Bond, is to die".
you're talking about a book called "The Sorrows of Young Werther" by Goethe. In 1864, the reach of "doctors" to data was as tenous as as anything in the nonsense in this thread - inter alia, re Michael Hulse's intro to the Penguin Ed: "Tales of a far more maudlin indulgence have been greatly exaggerated. An essential part of the Werther legend has always insisted there was a spate of 'Liebestod all over Europe'...But there seems little evidence that Goethe's novel prompted a suicide epidemic."
"Werther fever" peaked in the 1770's. The book was never banned. There seems to have been lots of nonsense spouted due to the books so-call "effect" but little more.
Please be more precise when you start quoting "evidence"; in fact, start quoting sources, and it might actually be believed.
Re:What a non story! A waste of space!
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 1
Wouldn't a good personal firewall, configured properly, stop any app contacting their mothership?
I like the idea as some kind of Identifier for ships - a ship might post details above itself telling the rest of the world it's name, registration, origins etc. Having this linked to the radar would be excellent - particularly at night - for watchkeepers trying to wake the dog on the other bridge. Make it mandatory, I say.
Ditto for civil aircraft.
Wonder how well it would do as a military IFF (Identify Friend or Foe)?
Re:I still don't see...
on
Perl6 for Mortals
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I see the need for a re-write but, from what I've read, this isn't the re-write it needed. Perl 6 doesn't give me any more clarity over Python than perl 5. All the things you say about Perl 6 I can say about Python but now rather than tomorrow - and Python still has far less syntactic sugar than perl 6. I'd say, on the evidence I've seen so far, that Perl 6 -still- doesn't hack it.
I'm a long-time user of perl - one of those who defected to Python, in my case, mostly because Perl 5 OO really doesn't go the full hog - it still clings to Perl-4 type syntax - and your're left with what looks like, and feels like, a kludge:-( Going to Python seems a better use of my resources than re-learning perl, if I'm to learn another language.
What is it with Parrot? Why can't we stick to the JVM? There's already an experimental perl project for this (lingo?) and there's Jython - python for Java. I'd don't see the need for Parrot. Why re-invent the wheel?
Sure, the JVM might not be as ethically pure as Parrot but I'd want to bury the hatchet with Sun (or do a clean-room implementation of a JVM, just as MS are doing) if I wanted to beat.NET. I figure inventing YAVM isn't the way to go. Go with what's already successful rather than pouring effort into something new, untested, untried, with yet another round of bugs and promotional effort all round. Reinforce the positive rather than reinvent the wheel, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's to say that the transactions monitored will not belong to a political opponent?
Who's to say that Ashcroft doesn't hanker after a database that describes his domestic political enemies to the last little detail? Exhuming Hoover?
I think that MS cannot - and does not - have the resources alone to manage sort of PK infrastructure required of this system to work. I don't think they realise the *network* issues involved in managing the PK authentication of x million users trying to authenticate against every damn piece of documentation/application that you will/might use. A billion documents? A million applications? Given either the latency of the net or the sluggishness/crapness of MS servers/system and the fact that they will try and do this over HTTP, the whole system will die. Juarez - the system originator - says that it will take a 100 million machines sold before the system takes hold. I think the system will be unsatisfactory before it gets to that limit. I've used passport and it's crap; I expect nothing less of the new authentication system. Joe Public will get pissed if they can't listen to Emninen's latest song without a microseconds' blink and I think the system that M$ will use to support palladium *will* tank. History is with me here; MS has never run a satisfactory public service. Period.
I think the only way to do this properly is to design and run a PK infrastructure with the help of a public body such as the W3C or IETF, who should be involved in designing and maintaining a PK support infrastructure. Much like the X500 directory system but directed solely at PK management. We should be there to *help* M$ in their quest to help their customers. Of course, we should do this to help ourselves.
Therefore, quid pro quo, if the management system is owned/managed/run by the public domain, the Palladium system should be commoditized i.e have an open API, and any apps that the system wil run, should be signed against *any* publicly trusted body. Maybe even the GNU project - or even Slash - can become such a body.
Remember, Paladium is at the "bluesky" stage: we should get in there and get what *we* the unwashed want. Is the EFF involved? Juarez says they're open to *everyone*. We should at least take advantage of that rather than endless threads whinging about it.
Essentially, we should design something which embraces and extends Palladium. A neat reversal, no?
I think the targets of Palladium are as follows:
1. All transactions over the internet
2. Sucking up to Hollywood.
3. Corralling the competition into some corner where they go away and die. This includes:
1. All other commercial companies
2. The GPL
3. *All* home-grown startups.
Cringely had an interesting article about Rockefeller "pulling up the ladder behind him" after he'd made his millions, ensuring no competitors. I think that, in some corner of Redmond, this is being considered. Maybe this is Gate's stab at killing off the competition. Of course, innovation will die but who said we had to have innovation to have profit? In fact, given the wild Pleistocene-type software developments of the past 15 years, maybe we're about to settle down to a more stable phase of evolutionary development in the computing world.
If this is true, I believe that we are currently living through a Golden Age of Computing; nothing like we see now will ever happen again.
To quote Jamie Zawinski talking about the RIAA and the webcasters: "Your job, Mr Bond, is to die".
you're talking about a book called "The Sorrows of Young Werther" by Goethe. In 1864, the reach of "doctors" to data was as tenous as as anything in the nonsense in this thread - inter alia, re Michael Hulse's intro to the Penguin Ed: "Tales of a far more maudlin indulgence have been greatly exaggerated. An essential part of the Werther legend has always insisted there was a spate of 'Liebestod all over Europe'...But there seems little evidence that Goethe's novel prompted a suicide epidemic."
"Werther fever" peaked in the 1770's. The book was never banned. There seems to have been lots of nonsense spouted due to the books so-call "effect" but little more.
Please be more precise when you start quoting "evidence"; in fact, start quoting sources, and it might actually be believed.
Wouldn't a good personal firewall, configured properly, stop any app contacting their mothership?
I like the idea as some kind of Identifier for ships - a ship might post details above itself telling the rest of the world it's name, registration, origins etc. Having this linked to the radar would be excellent - particularly at night - for watchkeepers trying to wake the dog on the other bridge. Make it mandatory, I say.
Ditto for civil aircraft.
Wonder how well it would do as a military IFF (Identify Friend or Foe)?
I see the need for a re-write but, from what I've read, this isn't the re-write it needed. Perl 6 doesn't give me any more clarity over Python than perl 5. All the things you say about Perl 6 I can say about Python but now rather than tomorrow - and Python still has far less syntactic sugar than perl 6. I'd say, on the evidence I've seen so far, that Perl 6 -still- doesn't hack it.
.NET. I figure inventing YAVM isn't the way to go. Go with what's already successful rather than pouring effort into something new, untested, untried, with yet another round of bugs and promotional effort all round. Reinforce the positive rather than reinvent the wheel, IMO.
I'm a long-time user of perl - one of those who defected to Python, in my case, mostly because Perl 5 OO really doesn't go the full hog - it still clings to Perl-4 type syntax - and your're left with what looks like, and feels like, a kludge:-( Going to Python seems a better use of my resources than re-learning perl, if I'm to learn another language.
What is it with Parrot? Why can't we stick to the JVM? There's already an experimental perl project for this (lingo?) and there's Jython - python for Java. I'd don't see the need for Parrot. Why re-invent the wheel?
Sure, the JVM might not be as ethically pure as Parrot but I'd want to bury the hatchet with Sun (or do a clean-room implementation of a JVM, just as MS are doing) if I wanted to beat