First, banking & paying bills are done over SSL, which is built *expecting* there to be man in the middle attacks, and it is not vulnerable to such. In other words, that's secure, whether going over wifi or whatever.
For other stuff, VPNs/ssl tunnels/whatever are fairly easy to put together, and I agree someone should do that so your browsing isn't transparent to anyone within 100 meters of you.
I was trying to address the specific point of the parent poster (that quantum computers gave instant results), not the difficulties of using Shor's algorithm in a practical setting to break cryptography.
There seems to be a general belief that quantum computing can try an algorithm against all possible inputs and give you the best/correct input in one iteration, which is just absolutely not true.
Remember it's quantum computers we're talking about. Quantum computers solve this kind of problems instantly. That's not true at all. However, Shor's algorithm runs in polynomial time in the number of bits of the key, so making keys twice as long doesn't make the time to crack the key go up fast enough to be worth it.
For the best known classical factoring algorithms, doubling the key length will basically multiply the number of operations required to factor by itself. For Shor's algorithm, doubling the key length might multiply the time to factor by four, but given how quickly computers get faster, that's basically worthless.
Are you fucking crazy? Is there even such a thing as a Bachelor's degree in Software Engineering or Software Project Management? I have been a developer (or whatever title you care to give it) for 12 years, and I've never heard of such a degree.
My degree is in Physics and Math, and I have had titles like Software Engineer, Technical Lead, Programmer/Analyst, Senior Analyst, Software Architect, Lead Architect, and Programmer. While programming is done in varying amounts in all those roles, it was a part of all of them. And none of them were solely programming - all involved architecture, design, making test plans, and writing documentation.
I can't imagine where you got the idea that those titles had some accepted meaning.
And regarding job availability, I get about three emails a day asking me to apply for some job based on a skills match, and probably another five phone calls a week for the same thing.
People are sending jobs overseas... and those projects are failing, for the most part. People want their software fast, and they want it good, and getting either is hard enough when the people you're dealing with are from the same culture and can meet with you face to face regularly. It's next to impossible when the developers are on another continent.
Maybe I don't understand git-tag, but what I want is to take all of the changes for a particular feature or bugfix and apply them to another repository, e.g. applying a bugfix from your latest dev branch to the production branch. Tagging as I've used it is an altogether different thing - it's applying a meaningful label to a complete snapshot of the code, not to one set of changes.
An explicit patch is just, well, one specific patch. A set of changes that were committed together. Darcs will also figure out which patches are necessary on the other repository to move the desired patch, and tell you those, too.
I haven't done a tremendous amount with it, but it is just as easy to set up a repository, and I never get the weird errors you're talking about.
Things darcs does that svn/cvs/VSS/ClearCase/etc don't do:
* name patches (commit sets) & find them trivially by name later
* trivially apply explicit patches to alternate branches
* automatically find all patches that a patch depends on
* create repositories trivially
* see who committed specific lines of code
Git didn't appear to do a lot of that - no naming of patches, no seeing who last modified specific lines of code, no automatically determining patch dependencies.
The big problem is that for long revision histories, darcs seems to have a few bugs. Everything I've seen people talk about on the mailing list they've been able to fix or work around, but I have a very low tolerance for bugs in my revision control tool:-) Even so, the extra features are cool enough that I still use darcs for some projects.
Oh, the other thing: darcs is written in Haskell. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
In the United States, you have every right to get together with friends and make copies of music on analog tape, or digital copies of music using digital audio recording equipment. This is per the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
I'm not sure what this means about copying a CD someone else bought to a tape, but copying a CD for a friend using digital audio equipment and audio cds is perfectly legal, and copying an audio tape to another audio tape is also legal. We pay a "tax" to the RIAA on every piece of digital audio equipment, audio CD, and audio tape to allow this.
My guess would be it is almost entirely the competitive nature that makes intellect get respect in Chinese schools.
I went to school in Arkansas, and my high school had the typical attitude towards athletics. Being popular was all about either having money or being in competitive athletics.
Starting in my sophomore year, Scott paper company sponsored an intellectual competition, Scott Hi Q. One of the teachers (who, interestingly enough, was also sometimes a football coach) got interested in the competition, and took it fairly seriously. The school had a series of optional tests we could take to get onto the team.
Everyone was surprised when I made the team, since I was not rich, and generally recognized as fairly bright but nothing special. My class had five students who were tied for valedictorian and whose parents were generally respected around town. I was not one of those students.
I was, however, extremely good at math. At the time, I could multiply a two digit number and a three digit number in my head faster than most could do it with a calculator, and I was also fairly well read and intuitively skilled at more advanced mathematics. What this meant was that I could kick all the other schools' asses when the time came to answer math questions.
In particular, one math question was "What number is divisible by 7 if you subtract 7, divisible by 8 if you subtract 8, and divisible by 9 if you subtract 9?" I immediately recognized that 0 was an answer, but not what they wanted, and that if it was divisible by X if you subtract X, it was divisible by X in the first place. And that the numbers were relatively prime. So the number was 7 * 8 * 9, which is 504. I had figured out everything except the multiplication problem before the question was finished, and I buzzed in with the answer less than a second after the question was finished. (I was double checking my arithmetic or I would have buzzed sooner). Luck was with me; it was a home game, and the auditorium erupted in cheers and clapping.
I went from a nobody to being recognized by all of the 'cool kids' and generally respected around the school. No one was terribly surprised when my ACT score beat the previous school record (for the whole history of the school).
My point [other than geek bragging rights;-) ] is that if we systematically treated being brainy as a competition in the US, we could probably move up to first worldwide in education. It wouldn't even require that the kids help - once they see someone representing their school winning (or losing!) a competition, they become very attached to the notion of succeeding in the competition, even if it is a bunch of nerds on stage instead of jocks on the field.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to say it was reasonable to use in that context... you just said "there's no such thing as non-polynomial time". It was with that specific assertion that I was disagreeing.
I really appreciate your forthright stand on what they had to say - it takes some confidence to tell someone who so clearly knows what they're doing in one technical area that they're full of shit in another.
I agree with everything you have to say, with one nitpicking exception: non-polynomial time seems a reasonable term to use. An algorithm that is O(N^N) takes time that is not polynomial in N, hence it is non-polynomial time.
Non-polynomial wouldn't mean the same thing as NP... You could put together an algorithm that is non-polynomial on a non-deterministic computer, too, which would be non-polynomial and not NP. It would be harder than NP.
I'm pretty sure that I've made more than the people who manage me for the last 5 or 6 years... not a lot more, but more. (Well, for one year I probably didn't, but otherwise...)
Become a contractor.
There is a lot more to being a great programmer than knowing the hardware, network architecture, and algorithms, too. You have to know how to write tests, how to document, how to design, and know when & how much to do those things. A good process helps a lot, but you also have to have experience.
Of course, you also have to know the low level stuff.
I'm not saying that you don't have those things, just pointing out the important stuff that you didn't focus on.
Wow, I would love to see a reference on that. You're saying that it takes *800 million* cpu cycles to simulate one second worth of one neuron's activities? (Assuming a dual core 4 ghz processor).
Of course, if Moore's law holds... a factor of 10 billion takes about (lemme see, 10^10 =~ 2^33, implies 33 * 1.5 years) 50 years. Yeah, that's a while, but not outside our lifetime, to get a household computer with the processing power of the human brain.
The references I've seen state that the power for the human brain will be available in a household computer between 10 and 30 years from now. (Search for human brain at http://www.foresight.org/updates/Update36/Update36 .4.html for estimates from Moravec & Kurzweil.)
1. Use a combination of surgical examination, dissection of dead tissue, and MRI and other dynamic techniques to produce a model of the physics of a human brain 2. Wait until Moore's law puts a computer within your price range that is capable of running that model at faster than 1 model second per real second 3. Implement it
You now have a machine that is slightly more intelligent than a human. Add in the fact that you can fully oxygenate all tissues, remove waste products, control neurochemicals, and dissipate (virtual) heat with no regard for physical laws, and I'd say it's quite a bit beyond human intelligence.
I agree with you that there are very, very few people in first world countries who are in poverty. (I qualify poverty as not being able to afford nutritious food & shelter from the elements). I disagree that there aren't "the poor" in the US. Poor is relative, and there are plenty of people who end up homeless or go for a week eating nothing or nothing but rice or noodles because they had some unavoidable mishap.
I couldn't go to school for a week because my old shoes wore out and we couldn't afford new ones. My toys were mostly junk I got from junkyards. My school lunches were paid for by me working in the school lunchroom - although we qualified for the free lunch program, we were too proud to take advantage of it. We had no TV for years, and often ate nothing but beans, rice, and stuff we grew in our garden. My mother worked long hours in a factory hanging chicken carcasses on hooks.
By southern african or afghani standards, we were middle class. By US standards, we were pretty abjectly poor.
I agree that the opportunity is there, and my original post is misleading. I'm not trying to say that one can't make it, just that it's vastly more difficult if you don't have the support network/role model/culture. And often the people who would be living hand to mouth if not for their fortunate circumstances are the first to look down their long nose at people making double minimum wage.
I am in the top 5 percent on income, but I had the good fortune to be smart enough to get a full scholarship. And I am very worried that I don't know how to raise kids in a household with money - I'm far from rich but I'm sure that the rural upbringing and lack of ready entertainment had a lot to do with my industry and education, and it's very hard to take that ready entertainment away from your kids when they know you can easily afford it.
I may well be humor impaired, but I'd like to point out that the first thing I say is "hey, if that was a joke, ignore me" and also that at the time I made the post, the parent was modded "3, Interesting". Not "Funny".
I dunno whether you were trying to be funny (mocking some people's view of poverty), and the mods just went awry, or if you're being serious...
If it's the first option, feel free to skip this post altogether:-)
There are plenty of people, I'm sure, who are poor because they have bad decision making skills, and so they also drink too much, or get caught doing illegal crap, or cash their checks at check cashing stores.
There are also plenty of people, probably many more than the prior set, that are poor because they made one bad decision (having a child by a loser who won't help) or had one episode of bad luck, combined with a lack of extended support networks. Either their friends & family are poor too, or their friends don't have enough money to help and their family is poor or estranged, etc.
I was raised by a single mother, and I am offended by your characterization of the poor. Moreover, I am horror-struck that a significant group of people think that it's accurate.
Imagine if you had lived your whole life surrounded by people working at jobs that barely made ends meet. Now imagine how you would:
a) Fit your head around the notion that you could get a job that paid well, having no direct experience with people with such a job. b) Obtain the skills to get that job. c) Recover, with no support network, from the inevitable bad decisions or bad luck that befall everyone. d) Develop all of the skills and habits to take advantage of financial success, having not been raised with them.
If your parents worked professional jobs, ever bought you a car or bailed you out of some financial problem, or paid for your college, you have NO CONCEPT of why the poor are "the poor".
Part of the problem is similar to (although much less severe than) trying to understand how people could do the stupid things they did hundreds of years ago. You live in a different culture, that has given you tools to become successful and build on that success. What's more, the culture has given you confidence in those tools that just hearing about them can't convey.
I hardly agree with your assertion, but moreover... what the hell do Cantor sets (lines with a fraction recursively removed from each segment) have to do with it?
You mean "call me when I can save the environment at no personal cost to me, whatsoever".
Or perhaps I should say "call me when I can stop my personal contribution to fucking up the environment at no personal cost to me, whatsoever"
Paying $150/month (the average of the range they give) versus $70 per month is hardly going to bankrupt you, assuming you work in IT in a first world country.
Of course, this is also marketed in Europe, where gas costs about double what it does in the US, so it sounds like it's break-even for them, right now (discounting electricity costs).
Honestly, I agree - for a long time to come, reputable datacenters won't (and shouldn't) use wireless except in limited circumstances. The common acceptance of the sad state of wireless security gets to me sometimes, and I tend to be reactionary when people claim it as a real problem rather than something easily solved if the standards boards and/or manufacturers would just raise the bar.
In a datacenter, though, there is no reason to go with an unproven technology, especially when the alternative is to run fiber over short distances through conduits they already have set up.
I do think we'll see the day when some kind of wireless that has *very* high availability, security, throughput, and user friendly behavior, with a rock solid implementation, will become the standard. Some day someone will put together the system where you just approve devices' communication request on both ends, and forget about the comm medium & security.
Slashdot Mirror
Other replies cover why, but I wanted to get a comment in with an obvious subject line.
First, banking & paying bills are done over SSL, which is built *expecting* there to be man in the middle attacks, and it is not vulnerable to such. In other words, that's secure, whether going over wifi or whatever.
For other stuff, VPNs/ssl tunnels/whatever are fairly easy to put together, and I agree someone should do that so your browsing isn't transparent to anyone within 100 meters of you.
That is very true.
I was trying to address the specific point of the parent poster (that quantum computers gave instant results), not the difficulties of using Shor's algorithm in a practical setting to break cryptography.
There seems to be a general belief that quantum computing can try an algorithm against all possible inputs and give you the best/correct input in one iteration, which is just absolutely not true.
For the best known classical factoring algorithms, doubling the key length will basically multiply the number of operations required to factor by itself. For Shor's algorithm, doubling the key length might multiply the time to factor by four, but given how quickly computers get faster, that's basically worthless.
Are you fucking crazy? Is there even such a thing as a Bachelor's degree in Software Engineering or Software Project Management? I have been a developer (or whatever title you care to give it) for 12 years, and I've never heard of such a degree.
My degree is in Physics and Math, and I have had titles like Software Engineer, Technical Lead, Programmer/Analyst, Senior Analyst, Software Architect, Lead Architect, and Programmer. While programming is done in varying amounts in all those roles, it was a part of all of them. And none of them were solely programming - all involved architecture, design, making test plans, and writing documentation.
I can't imagine where you got the idea that those titles had some accepted meaning.
And regarding job availability, I get about three emails a day asking me to apply for some job based on a skills match, and probably another five phone calls a week for the same thing.
People are sending jobs overseas... and those projects are failing, for the most part. People want their software fast, and they want it good, and getting either is hard enough when the people you're dealing with are from the same culture and can meet with you face to face regularly. It's next to impossible when the developers are on another continent.
# of systems and pieces of software requiring sysadmin attention * hours in a day - downtime in those systems
If you guys do your job so that trouble tickets never happen, you get credit for it. If you handle trouble tickets quickly, you get credit for it.
What better way of tracking your sysadmin efficiency than how many systems do they administer without them going down?
Maybe I don't understand git-tag, but what I want is to take all of the changes for a particular feature or bugfix and apply them to another repository, e.g. applying a bugfix from your latest dev branch to the production branch. Tagging as I've used it is an altogether different thing - it's applying a meaningful label to a complete snapshot of the code, not to one set of changes.
An explicit patch is just, well, one specific patch. A set of changes that were committed together. Darcs will also figure out which patches are necessary on the other repository to move the desired patch, and tell you those, too.
I haven't done a tremendous amount with it, but it is just as easy to set up a repository, and I never get the weird errors you're talking about.
:-) Even so, the extra features are cool enough that I still use darcs for some projects.
Things darcs does that svn/cvs/VSS/ClearCase/etc don't do:
* name patches (commit sets) & find them trivially by name later
* trivially apply explicit patches to alternate branches
* automatically find all patches that a patch depends on
* create repositories trivially
* see who committed specific lines of code
Git didn't appear to do a lot of that - no naming of patches, no seeing who last modified specific lines of code, no automatically determining patch dependencies.
The big problem is that for long revision histories, darcs seems to have a few bugs. Everything I've seen people talk about on the mailing list they've been able to fix or work around, but I have a very low tolerance for bugs in my revision control tool
Oh, the other thing: darcs is written in Haskell. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
Nothing; it was a reply to another comment.
That would be why I posted it as a reply.
Why do I have to keep repeating myself?
In the United States, you have every right to get together with friends and make copies of music on analog tape, or digital copies of music using digital audio recording equipment. This is per the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
I'm not sure what this means about copying a CD someone else bought to a tape, but copying a CD for a friend using digital audio equipment and audio cds is perfectly legal, and copying an audio tape to another audio tape is also legal. We pay a "tax" to the RIAA on every piece of digital audio equipment, audio CD, and audio tape to allow this.
My guess would be it is almost entirely the competitive nature that makes intellect get respect in Chinese schools.
;-) ] is that if we systematically treated being brainy as a competition in the US, we could probably move up to first worldwide in education. It wouldn't even require that the kids help - once they see someone representing their school winning (or losing!) a competition, they become very attached to the notion of succeeding in the competition, even if it is a bunch of nerds on stage instead of jocks on the field.
I went to school in Arkansas, and my high school had the typical attitude towards athletics. Being popular was all about either having money or being in competitive athletics.
Starting in my sophomore year, Scott paper company sponsored an intellectual competition, Scott Hi Q. One of the teachers (who, interestingly enough, was also sometimes a football coach) got interested in the competition, and took it fairly seriously. The school had a series of optional tests we could take to get onto the team.
Everyone was surprised when I made the team, since I was not rich, and generally recognized as fairly bright but nothing special. My class had five students who were tied for valedictorian and whose parents were generally respected around town. I was not one of those students.
I was, however, extremely good at math. At the time, I could multiply a two digit number and a three digit number in my head faster than most could do it with a calculator, and I was also fairly well read and intuitively skilled at more advanced mathematics. What this meant was that I could kick all the other schools' asses when the time came to answer math questions.
In particular, one math question was "What number is divisible by 7 if you subtract 7, divisible by 8 if you subtract 8, and divisible by 9 if you subtract 9?" I immediately recognized that 0 was an answer, but not what they wanted, and that if it was divisible by X if you subtract X, it was divisible by X in the first place. And that the numbers were relatively prime. So the number was 7 * 8 * 9, which is 504. I had figured out everything except the multiplication problem before the question was finished, and I buzzed in with the answer less than a second after the question was finished. (I was double checking my arithmetic or I would have buzzed sooner). Luck was with me; it was a home game, and the auditorium erupted in cheers and clapping.
I went from a nobody to being recognized by all of the 'cool kids' and generally respected around the school. No one was terribly surprised when my ACT score beat the previous school record (for the whole history of the school).
My point [other than geek bragging rights
Yeah, I wasn't trying to say it was reasonable to use in that context... you just said "there's no such thing as non-polynomial time". It was with that specific assertion that I was disagreeing.
I really appreciate your forthright stand on what they had to say - it takes some confidence to tell someone who so clearly knows what they're doing in one technical area that they're full of shit in another.
I agree with everything you have to say, with one nitpicking exception: non-polynomial time seems a reasonable term to use. An algorithm that is O(N^N) takes time that is not polynomial in N, hence it is non-polynomial time.
Non-polynomial wouldn't mean the same thing as NP... You could put together an algorithm that is non-polynomial on a non-deterministic computer, too, which would be non-polynomial and not NP. It would be harder than NP.
I'm pretty sure that I've made more than the people who manage me for the last 5 or 6 years... not a lot more, but more. (Well, for one year I probably didn't, but otherwise...)
Become a contractor.
There is a lot more to being a great programmer than knowing the hardware, network architecture, and algorithms, too. You have to know how to write tests, how to document, how to design, and know when & how much to do those things. A good process helps a lot, but you also have to have experience.
Of course, you also have to know the low level stuff.
I'm not saying that you don't have those things, just pointing out the important stuff that you didn't focus on.
Wow, I would love to see a reference on that. You're saying that it takes *800 million* cpu cycles to simulate one second worth of one neuron's activities? (Assuming a dual core 4 ghz processor).
6 .4.html for estimates from Moravec & Kurzweil.)
Of course, if Moore's law holds...
a factor of 10 billion takes about (lemme see, 10^10 =~ 2^33, implies 33 * 1.5 years) 50 years. Yeah, that's a while, but not outside our lifetime, to get a household computer with the processing power of the human brain.
The references I've seen state that the power for the human brain will be available in a household computer between 10 and 30 years from now. (Search for human brain at http://www.foresight.org/updates/Update36/Update3
1. Use a combination of surgical examination, dissection of dead tissue, and MRI and other dynamic techniques to produce a model of the physics of a human brain
2. Wait until Moore's law puts a computer within your price range that is capable of running that model at faster than 1 model second per real second
3. Implement it
You now have a machine that is slightly more intelligent than a human. Add in the fact that you can fully oxygenate all tissues, remove waste products, control neurochemicals, and dissipate (virtual) heat with no regard for physical laws, and I'd say it's quite a bit beyond human intelligence.
I agree with you that there are very, very few people in first world countries who are in poverty. (I qualify poverty as not being able to afford nutritious food & shelter from the elements). I disagree that there aren't "the poor" in the US. Poor is relative, and there are plenty of people who end up homeless or go for a week eating nothing or nothing but rice or noodles because they had some unavoidable mishap.
I couldn't go to school for a week because my old shoes wore out and we couldn't afford new ones. My toys were mostly junk I got from junkyards. My school lunches were paid for by me working in the school lunchroom - although we qualified for the free lunch program, we were too proud to take advantage of it. We had no TV for years, and often ate nothing but beans, rice, and stuff we grew in our garden. My mother worked long hours in a factory hanging chicken carcasses on hooks.
By southern african or afghani standards, we were middle class. By US standards, we were pretty abjectly poor.
I agree that the opportunity is there, and my original post is misleading. I'm not trying to say that one can't make it, just that it's vastly more difficult if you don't have the support network/role model/culture. And often the people who would be living hand to mouth if not for their fortunate circumstances are the first to look down their long nose at people making double minimum wage.
I am in the top 5 percent on income, but I had the good fortune to be smart enough to get a full scholarship. And I am very worried that I don't know how to raise kids in a household with money - I'm far from rich but I'm sure that the rural upbringing and lack of ready entertainment had a lot to do with my industry and education, and it's very hard to take that ready entertainment away from your kids when they know you can easily afford it.
I may well be humor impaired, but I'd like to point out that the first thing I say is "hey, if that was a joke, ignore me" and also that at the time I made the post, the parent was modded "3, Interesting". Not "Funny".
Begin off-topic rant:
:-)
I dunno whether you were trying to be funny (mocking some people's view of poverty), and the mods just went awry, or if you're being serious...
If it's the first option, feel free to skip this post altogether
There are plenty of people, I'm sure, who are poor because they have bad decision making skills, and so they also drink too much, or get caught doing illegal crap, or cash their checks at check cashing stores.
There are also plenty of people, probably many more than the prior set, that are poor because they made one bad decision (having a child by a loser who won't help) or had one episode of bad luck, combined with a lack of extended support networks. Either their friends & family are poor too, or their friends don't have enough money to help and their family is poor or estranged, etc.
I was raised by a single mother, and I am offended by your characterization of the poor. Moreover, I am horror-struck that a significant group of people think that it's accurate.
Imagine if you had lived your whole life surrounded by people working at jobs that barely made ends meet. Now imagine how you would:
a) Fit your head around the notion that you could get a job that paid well, having no direct experience with people with such a job.
b) Obtain the skills to get that job.
c) Recover, with no support network, from the inevitable bad decisions or bad luck that befall everyone.
d) Develop all of the skills and habits to take advantage of financial success, having not been raised with them.
If your parents worked professional jobs, ever bought you a car or bailed you out of some financial problem, or paid for your college, you have NO CONCEPT of why the poor are "the poor".
Part of the problem is similar to (although much less severe than) trying to understand how people could do the stupid things they did hundreds of years ago. You live in a different culture, that has given you tools to become successful and build on that success. What's more, the culture has given you confidence in those tools that just hearing about them can't convey.
End rant.
I hardly agree with your assertion, but moreover...
what the hell do Cantor sets (lines with a fraction recursively removed from each segment) have to do with it?
You mean "call me when I can save the environment at no personal cost to me, whatsoever".
Or perhaps I should say "call me when I can stop my personal contribution to fucking up the environment at no personal cost to me, whatsoever"
Paying $150/month (the average of the range they give) versus $70 per month is hardly going to bankrupt you, assuming you work in IT in a first world country.
Of course, this is also marketed in Europe, where gas costs about double what it does in the US, so it sounds like it's break-even for them, right now (discounting electricity costs).
I can definitely see that if you're riding a bus, although I would probably carry a laptop to & from work if I used public transportation.
I live in/around Dallas in the US, and we have crap for public transportation, so I'm driving during that time.
Note that assuming that you spread your "10 minutes"s throughout the week, it takes 12 of them per day to add up to 14 hours a week.
I certainly don't have anywhere close to that many 10 minute idle periods each day...
Honestly, I agree - for a long time to come, reputable datacenters won't (and shouldn't) use wireless except in limited circumstances. The common acceptance of the sad state of wireless security gets to me sometimes, and I tend to be reactionary when people claim it as a real problem rather than something easily solved if the standards boards and/or manufacturers would just raise the bar.
In a datacenter, though, there is no reason to go with an unproven technology, especially when the alternative is to run fiber over short distances through conduits they already have set up.
I do think we'll see the day when some kind of wireless that has *very* high availability, security, throughput, and user friendly behavior, with a rock solid implementation, will become the standard. Some day someone will put together the system where you just approve devices' communication request on both ends, and forget about the comm medium & security.