Except that's potentially among the worst approaches for users. Does this open protocol just hand over all your data to any partner that asks? Ideally no, but exactly what data becomes invisible matters. I'd hope that at least the friend graph should become only locally visible, although still individual social networking sites are big enough for that graph to be concerning.
I'm afraid the best solution would be a peer2peer system designed to prevent even traffic analysis :
- Users are identified by a SHA-512 hash of their screen name attached to an unencrypted public and an encrypted private RSA-4096 key, as well as an encrypted private user data sheet and private directory. All this information gets stored 'in the cloud' allowing users to login anywhere.
- Any information the users wants easily searchable, like real name, email, phone, etc. may float around the cloud incased in SHA-512 hashes that point to their screen name's SHA-512 hash. Any searches that fail the easy mode get shuffled into some queue for users machines to check against their data sheet whenever they come back online, maybe this search gets restricted to two or three friends hops though.
- All files are stored "in the cloud" in "directories" encrypted using AES-256. And the directory has an associated table containing copies of this AES-256 key encrypted to various participant's public key pairs.
- All directories posses two unencrypted public and encrypted private RSA-1024 key pairs. Anyone who decrypts the directory will gain access to the first of these encrypted private keys with which they can authenticate changes to the directory in the cloud. In particular, such users may add addendums that either make comments on the directory's contents or additions to the table of users permitted to access the directory. And the second private key pair gets used to authenticate changes and deletions with the cloud.
- All users store a selection of home directories in the cloud that are encrypted to various different selections of friends to provide some indexes of file directories, enable their friends to find their other friends, etc. There are no records of directory ownership or friendships stored unencrypted in the cloud.
I've never been too afraid that Apple would hold onto any dominant market position indefinitely because Apple's one size fits all philosophy simply cannot make everyone happy. Apple success has shown however that consumer electronics supports a one size fits all philosophy infinitely better than the business market where Microsoft trounced them.
Apple has kept their overpriced ipods on top largely by providing consumers with the most physically attractive product. And physical attractiveness has also played a role in adoption of their laptop line as well, especially the Air. Yet, I doubt the iPhone will carry the day on looks.
All the phone manufactures are far more habituated to producing a beautiful product that either laptop or mp3 player makers. Android lets them focus much more so on the looks problem. And people don't want to all look exactly alike.
Apple isn't likely to dominate any markets that actually matter. Yes, tablets remains an open question. Yet, we're seeing iOS's retarded design limits here. Maemo's widgets and integration made it a better tablet operating system than iOS. And that made Maemo ultimately a better phone operating system too. Apple may've needed to approach the problem from the other direction to escape the desktop metaphor, but ultimately iOS is inferior to Android with it's widgets.
We should ideally just pass a law that compiled code isn't protected under copyright law unless the source code is available to anyone who purchases the product of course, i.e. mandate open source licenses. Good luck! lol
I doubt that facebook will die, normally companies that get this big hang around indefinitely, even if they eventually turn into yahoo or aol.
There is a killer app waiting to kill facebook, namely an open source private social networking application that takes photo & video sharing to the logical extreme of friend2friend file sharing. Ideally, you'd want all communications traffic-analysis-resistant and obviously encrypted. An approach might be making FreeNet user friendly and adding a FreeNet Social Networking app, but FreeNet seems slow as piss and incapable of handling even basic IM functionality.
I doubt you'll knock out facebook without some major new feature though, like general purpose friend2friend file sharing. And you'll need solid plausible deniability before that one becomes viable.
Alternatively, all the pitiful "also ran" social networks like Tuenti, Hi5, Orkut, etc. could gang up on facebook by adopting some common shared data model. I'd expect they'll try this eventually, but like 5+ years after facebook has killed them all, and only once google starts buying them.
Another alternative might be for various countries to start legislating around social networks, requiring age verification, requiring that photos expire after 6 months, barring the data from being mirrored outside the country, barring civil servants from using foreign based social networks, etc.
All the cyber locker sites exist because email doesn't permit large enough attachments. There are numerous small businesses that use cyber lockers to communicate with their clients, sub contractors, etc. The war on cyber lockers is a war on small, not the fight against piracy.
I'm doubtful any "world wide mind" will arise anytime soon, but we absolutely could begin experiment with parallelizing rats today, i.e. raise two rats with a high bandwidth link, after one rat learns the maze, the other knows it. And we'd eventually developed massively paralleled humans, literally Beowulf.;)
If Anonymous wins, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project) could accept for brining Anonymity to dissidents.
And we'd all lol when TSA takes his laptop again upon reentering the U.S.
And maybe this way the/b/ tards running #anonops would actually figure out they should use Tor.:)
Imho, they should give the prize jointly to WikiLeaks and their anonymous source(s) , with Julian Assange accepting for WikiLeaks and an empty chair for Brian Manning. In fact, maybe two empty chairs, one for Assange and one for Manning, thus egging both Sweden and the U.S. lol
That's dumb, you shouldn't award the prize for a side effect of an unrelated engineering effort. Prizes must be purely functional!;)
Fuck, that ass Zuckerberg would beat out Tim Berners-Lee anywho. Zuckerberg was at least considering the social consequences, sure he'd bad social consequences in mind, but he still better understood the consequences of his invention than Tim Berners-Lee.
If the internet wins, those accepting should be people who've put themselves on the line by bringing technology to dissidents, i.e. Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. Plus we'll get epic lulz if they need an empty chair for Assange.
You should not choose the awardees or accepters of a Nobel Peace Prize based upon side effects of their work, that's just dumb. So no Tim Berners-Lee, no Zuckerberg, etc.
If the internet wins, those accepting should be people who've put themselves on the line by bringing technology to dissidents, i.e. Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. And there will truly epic lulz if they need an empty chair for Assange because he's in prison.
Alternatively, you might choose Arab and North African revolutionaries who've made incredible usage of the internet.
p.s. They could jointly award WikiLeaks and the anonymous source(s) of their three big classified U.S. leaks, an empty chair since Brian Manning rots in prison. Again epic lulz! And double secret probation epic lulz if they need an empty char for both Assange and Manning.:)
Moreover, they should not ask engineers to accept the award on behalf of the internet, i.e. no Tim Berners-Lee, no Zuckerberg, etc.
Ideally, the people who accept the prize should be people who're most putting themselves at risk to make the internet friendly to dissidents. And that'd be Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc.:)
We should all hope that WikiLeaks wins with Assange accepting the prize because it's be fucking hilarious if they award an empty chair with him being in prison in Sweden. Truely. Epic. Lulz.
Ideally, they'll award both WikiLeaks and it's leakers, that way we'll get an empty chair for Manning even if Assange has gone free. lol
Alternatively, you might ask some people heavily involved in the actually usage of the internet in the middle easter revolutions, maybe Wael Ghonim.
That's be asinine, Gore won one Nobel Peace Prize himself already.
You shouldn't give the award to engineers for side effects of their work either, i.e. Tim Berners-Lee, Zuckerberg, etc. should not do the accepting if the internet wins. Ideally, the people who accept the prize should be people who're most putting themselves at risk to make the internet friendly to dissidents. And that'd be Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc.:)
We should all pull for Assange here because that'd be fucking hilarious if they must award an empty chair with him in prison. lol And Manning too for the same reason.
They should give it to WikiLeaks with Julian Assange accepting for WikiLeaks, meaning an empty chair if he's still in prison. And jointly they could award the anonymous source(s) of their three big classified U.S. leaks, an empty chair since Brian Manning rots in prison.
The Nobel Peace Prize should ideally have some sort of activist quality, making dissident unkillable, pissing off some government, etc. The U.S. and Sweden deserve the embarrassment of the world looking at two empty chairs representing their hypocrisy. Epic lulz!
That said, if they choose the internet, they should still ask that Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. accept the award on behalf of the Internet, the point being they're most representative of making the technology available for dissidents. You should not ask say Tim Berners-Lee to accept an award on behalf of the internet because all this progress has been a side effect of his work. And it'd just be asinine awarding Facebook and Twitter. Yes, they played a major role, but so did radio, fax, etc.
I'd imagine the SMART status gets marked failed when the drive runs out of good sectors to remap, right?
I've had multiple drives with SMART status verified that frequently gave a long spinning beach balls. If you checked dmesg, you'll see the beach ball was caused by repeatedly attempting to read a file on a bad block. In fact, you can temporarily solve the problem by moving those files to/.badblocks and restoring them onto different sectors using time machine. Such drives will eventually show a failed SMART status if you kee using them of course, but that might require months.
Interesting? I've never heard about dirty power causing problems.
I've had high failure rates for my batteries too, which I suspect results from one of my two power supplies being bad, or maybe the laptops internal power stuff.
I've never had any significant screen problems, excluding the inevitable eventual moisture damage, but that'll effect any screen. I've had a run of batteries decaying rapidly after the 1 year warranty mark, but that might be my MacBook or power supply, not the batteries themselves, again not unexpected regardless. I've also experienced two broken dvd drives, but I never used either dvd drives anywho, so who cares.
Yeah, the only quality issue I've every really had with MacBooks was the hard disk. In fact, the drive died around 2 months out on my very first MacBook. I guess the one I just replaced was two years old, although it hadn't totally failed, just slowed the computer to a crawl reading bad blocks. It had replaced a 1ish year old drive that'd actually failed. In between, I've had drives that lasted 3ish years, well one maybe still runs, but I gave that old computer away.
I've likely run the computer at funky angles or stored them on their side more than most people, but that's supposedly fine. I travel with the laptop in my backpack, not the bumping rolly suitcase.
Btw, you should always check the smart status and or dmesg when your Macbook gives a spinning beach ball. Beach ball often indicate the computer is struggling with bad blocks that it stupidly doesn't feel like marking as bad. I usually move all the problem files mentioned by dmesg to/.badblocks and restore them from time machine, that improves performance temporarily, but expect more bad blocks.
5 years? A desktop hard drive maybe. Apple's laptop hard drives die fairly reliably like 2ish years out. I've never seen one last longer than 3 years, although I've seen some fail in year 1.
There are also issues with Mac OS X not handling failing drives gracefully by not giving other processes any CPU time when the kernel starts working on reading a bad sector, plus even obviously bad sectors are commonly not marked.
If Zimbabwe rises up, we should position a carrier battle group and prevent Mugabe from using air strikes against protestors, but we should not land troops. It's their war, we cannot give freedom, they must take it.
It's okay, I've found gigpedia & usenet have simpler checkout procedures.
It's asinine that library ebooks should self destruct. If they want to negotiate a minimum loan duration to force the library to buy more of popular books, like maybe 1 day per 100 pages, well fine, but checkout counts run contrary to the whole idea of libraries.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that's potentially among the worst approaches for users. Does this open protocol just hand over all your data to any partner that asks? Ideally no, but exactly what data becomes invisible matters. I'd hope that at least the friend graph should become only locally visible, although still individual social networking sites are big enough for that graph to be concerning.
I'm afraid the best solution would be a peer2peer system designed to prevent even traffic analysis :
- Users are identified by a SHA-512 hash of their screen name attached to an unencrypted public and an encrypted private RSA-4096 key, as well as an encrypted private user data sheet and private directory. All this information gets stored 'in the cloud' allowing users to login anywhere.
- Any information the users wants easily searchable, like real name, email, phone, etc. may float around the cloud incased in SHA-512 hashes that point to their screen name's SHA-512 hash. Any searches that fail the easy mode get shuffled into some queue for users machines to check against their data sheet whenever they come back online, maybe this search gets restricted to two or three friends hops though.
- All files are stored "in the cloud" in "directories" encrypted using AES-256. And the directory has an associated table containing copies of this AES-256 key encrypted to various participant's public key pairs.
- All directories posses two unencrypted public and encrypted private RSA-1024 key pairs. Anyone who decrypts the directory will gain access to the first of these encrypted private keys with which they can authenticate changes to the directory in the cloud. In particular, such users may add addendums that either make comments on the directory's contents or additions to the table of users permitted to access the directory. And the second private key pair gets used to authenticate changes and deletions with the cloud.
- All users store a selection of home directories in the cloud that are encrypted to various different selections of friends to provide some indexes of file directories, enable their friends to find their other friends, etc. There are no records of directory ownership or friendships stored unencrypted in the cloud.
I've never been too afraid that Apple would hold onto any dominant market position indefinitely because Apple's one size fits all philosophy simply cannot make everyone happy. Apple success has shown however that consumer electronics supports a one size fits all philosophy infinitely better than the business market where Microsoft trounced them.
Apple has kept their overpriced ipods on top largely by providing consumers with the most physically attractive product. And physical attractiveness has also played a role in adoption of their laptop line as well, especially the Air. Yet, I doubt the iPhone will carry the day on looks.
All the phone manufactures are far more habituated to producing a beautiful product that either laptop or mp3 player makers. Android lets them focus much more so on the looks problem. And people don't want to all look exactly alike.
Apple isn't likely to dominate any markets that actually matter. Yes, tablets remains an open question. Yet, we're seeing iOS's retarded design limits here. Maemo's widgets and integration made it a better tablet operating system than iOS. And that made Maemo ultimately a better phone operating system too. Apple may've needed to approach the problem from the other direction to escape the desktop metaphor, but ultimately iOS is inferior to Android with it's widgets.
We should ideally just pass a law that compiled code isn't protected under copyright law unless the source code is available to anyone who purchases the product of course, i.e. mandate open source licenses. Good luck! lol
I doubt that facebook will die, normally companies that get this big hang around indefinitely, even if they eventually turn into yahoo or aol.
There is a killer app waiting to kill facebook, namely an open source private social networking application that takes photo & video sharing to the logical extreme of friend2friend file sharing. Ideally, you'd want all communications traffic-analysis-resistant and obviously encrypted. An approach might be making FreeNet user friendly and adding a FreeNet Social Networking app, but FreeNet seems slow as piss and incapable of handling even basic IM functionality.
I doubt you'll knock out facebook without some major new feature though, like general purpose friend2friend file sharing. And you'll need solid plausible deniability before that one becomes viable.
Alternatively, all the pitiful "also ran" social networks like Tuenti, Hi5, Orkut, etc. could gang up on facebook by adopting some common shared data model. I'd expect they'll try this eventually, but like 5+ years after facebook has killed them all, and only once google starts buying them.
Another alternative might be for various countries to start legislating around social networks, requiring age verification, requiring that photos expire after 6 months, barring the data from being mirrored outside the country, barring civil servants from using foreign based social networks, etc.
It's true you won't get shot by cops in the U.K. but you get your live micromanaged in other ways. Europe will usually be "more free" than either.
It also suggests that Nokia and Intel were idiots for switching their mobile Linux distributions over to RedHat based systems.
All the cyber locker sites exist because email doesn't permit large enough attachments. There are numerous small businesses that use cyber lockers to communicate with their clients, sub contractors, etc. The war on cyber lockers is a war on small, not the fight against piracy.
..it's already there.
I'm doubtful any "world wide mind" will arise anytime soon, but we absolutely could begin experiment with parallelizing rats today, i.e. raise two rats with a high bandwidth link, after one rat learns the maze, the other knows it. And we'd eventually developed massively paralleled humans, literally Beowulf. ;)
If Anonymous wins, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project) could accept for brining Anonymity to dissidents.
And we'd all lol when TSA takes his laptop again upon reentering the U.S.
And maybe this way the /b/ tards running #anonops would actually figure out they should use Tor. :)
Imho, they should give the prize jointly to WikiLeaks and their anonymous source(s) , with Julian Assange accepting for WikiLeaks and an empty chair for Brian Manning. In fact, maybe two empty chairs, one for Assange and one for Manning, thus egging both Sweden and the U.S. lol
That's dumb, you shouldn't award the prize for a side effect of an unrelated engineering effort. Prizes must be purely functional! ;)
Fuck, that ass Zuckerberg would beat out Tim Berners-Lee anywho. Zuckerberg was at least considering the social consequences, sure he'd bad social consequences in mind, but he still better understood the consequences of his invention than Tim Berners-Lee.
If the internet wins, those accepting should be people who've put themselves on the line by bringing technology to dissidents, i.e. Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. Plus we'll get epic lulz if they need an empty chair for Assange.
You should not choose the awardees or accepters of a Nobel Peace Prize based upon side effects of their work, that's just dumb. So no Tim Berners-Lee, no Zuckerberg, etc.
If the internet wins, those accepting should be people who've put themselves on the line by bringing technology to dissidents, i.e. Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. And there will truly epic lulz if they need an empty chair for Assange because he's in prison.
Alternatively, you might choose Arab and North African revolutionaries who've made incredible usage of the internet.
p.s. They could jointly award WikiLeaks and the anonymous source(s) of their three big classified U.S. leaks, an empty chair since Brian Manning rots in prison. Again epic lulz! And double secret probation epic lulz if they need an empty char for both Assange and Manning. :)
Moreover, they should not ask engineers to accept the award on behalf of the internet, i.e. no Tim Berners-Lee, no Zuckerberg, etc.
Ideally, the people who accept the prize should be people who're most putting themselves at risk to make the internet friendly to dissidents. And that'd be Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. :)
We should all hope that WikiLeaks wins with Assange accepting the prize because it's be fucking hilarious if they award an empty chair with him being in prison in Sweden. Truely. Epic. Lulz.
Ideally, they'll award both WikiLeaks and it's leakers, that way we'll get an empty chair for Manning even if Assange has gone free. lol
Alternatively, you might ask some people heavily involved in the actually usage of the internet in the middle easter revolutions, maybe Wael Ghonim.
That's be asinine, Gore won one Nobel Peace Prize himself already.
You shouldn't give the award to engineers for side effects of their work either, i.e. Tim Berners-Lee, Zuckerberg, etc. should not do the accepting if the internet wins. Ideally, the people who accept the prize should be people who're most putting themselves at risk to make the internet friendly to dissidents. And that'd be Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. :)
We should all pull for Assange here because that'd be fucking hilarious if they must award an empty chair with him in prison. lol And Manning too for the same reason.
They should give it to WikiLeaks with Julian Assange accepting for WikiLeaks, meaning an empty chair if he's still in prison. And jointly they could award the anonymous source(s) of their three big classified U.S. leaks, an empty chair since Brian Manning rots in prison.
The Nobel Peace Prize should ideally have some sort of activist quality, making dissident unkillable, pissing off some government, etc. The U.S. and Sweden deserve the embarrassment of the world looking at two empty chairs representing their hypocrisy. Epic lulz!
That said, if they choose the internet, they should still ask that Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. accept the award on behalf of the Internet, the point being they're most representative of making the technology available for dissidents. You should not ask say Tim Berners-Lee to accept an award on behalf of the internet because all this progress has been a side effect of his work. And it'd just be asinine awarding Facebook and Twitter. Yes, they played a major role, but so did radio, fax, etc.
I'd imagine the SMART status gets marked failed when the drive runs out of good sectors to remap, right?
I've had multiple drives with SMART status verified that frequently gave a long spinning beach balls. If you checked dmesg, you'll see the beach ball was caused by repeatedly attempting to read a file on a bad block. In fact, you can temporarily solve the problem by moving those files to /.badblocks and restoring them onto different sectors using time machine. Such drives will eventually show a failed SMART status if you kee using them of course, but that might require months.
Interesting? I've never heard about dirty power causing problems.
I've had high failure rates for my batteries too, which I suspect results from one of my two power supplies being bad, or maybe the laptops internal power stuff.
Interesting! Are you talking about MacBook Pros?
I've never had any significant screen problems, excluding the inevitable eventual moisture damage, but that'll effect any screen. I've had a run of batteries decaying rapidly after the 1 year warranty mark, but that might be my MacBook or power supply, not the batteries themselves, again not unexpected regardless. I've also experienced two broken dvd drives, but I never used either dvd drives anywho, so who cares.
Yeah, the only quality issue I've every really had with MacBooks was the hard disk. In fact, the drive died around 2 months out on my very first MacBook. I guess the one I just replaced was two years old, although it hadn't totally failed, just slowed the computer to a crawl reading bad blocks. It had replaced a 1ish year old drive that'd actually failed. In between, I've had drives that lasted 3ish years, well one maybe still runs, but I gave that old computer away.
I've likely run the computer at funky angles or stored them on their side more than most people, but that's supposedly fine. I travel with the laptop in my backpack, not the bumping rolly suitcase.
Btw, you should always check the smart status and or dmesg when your Macbook gives a spinning beach ball. Beach ball often indicate the computer is struggling with bad blocks that it stupidly doesn't feel like marking as bad. I usually move all the problem files mentioned by dmesg to /.badblocks and restore them from time machine, that improves performance temporarily, but expect more bad blocks.
5 years? A desktop hard drive maybe. Apple's laptop hard drives die fairly reliably like 2ish years out. I've never seen one last longer than 3 years, although I've seen some fail in year 1.
There are also issues with Mac OS X not handling failing drives gracefully by not giving other processes any CPU time when the kernel starts working on reading a bad sector, plus even obviously bad sectors are commonly not marked.
I just want a good wireless router with a built in hardware RAID 5 array.
If Zimbabwe rises up, we should position a carrier battle group and prevent Mugabe from using air strikes against protestors, but we should not land troops. It's their war, we cannot give freedom, they must take it.
There was another comment down thread saying "DRM is the end of history" or "society ends with successful DRM" or some such. Sounds like a good meme.
It's okay, I've found gigpedia & usenet have simpler checkout procedures.
It's asinine that library ebooks should self destruct. If they want to negotiate a minimum loan duration to force the library to buy more of popular books, like maybe 1 day per 100 pages, well fine, but checkout counts run contrary to the whole idea of libraries.
Isn't Microsloft famous for infighting killing their good projects and their partners?
programming language fans
"If ebay ever [buys federal legislation that effectively] outlaws craigslist, ..."
If I spoke lefty, I'd maybe pontificate about "regulatory capture", but I prefer cynic or plain english.