I may be off base here, but every time I see what is effectively a "There will be too much data for them to abuse (or attack one person)" I think the following:
The US/Mexico border is huge. So large in fact that no one can use the entire border to cross over into the US. Therefore the border cannot be crossed illegally.
That sounds, and is, silly; you only need to use a small part of the border to cross illegally. I think the "too much data" argument is equally silly. You don't need to use all of the data provided to perform illegal actions, just a small part of it. Similarly, adding a bunch of noise won't prevent someone from being persecuted because they emailed the same phrase as a joke.
They can already subpoena banks, airlines, get your criminal records etc... so what if the FBI can access your records at any time?
That is the whole point! Yes the FBI can get this information, but first they have to prove to a judge that there is probable cause that you are breaking the law. They can't just walk down the hallway and say, give me everything on X and don't ask why.
The US Constitution and laws are built this way for a reason. There is a whole system of Checks and Balances to help prevent misuse of power. To prevent, specifically, the tyranny the colonies were living with under the English rule. How have those goals to prevent tyranny changed in 200 years?
That haven't; some politicians have just forgotten why the country was formed.
Come on everyone, this whole post is basic 9th grade civics.
I really love this quote from the article: "Both the 300X250 and 180X150 ad units feature similar proportions to TV, enabling easier creative development." I guess someone has been smelling the convergence fumes too long.
As someone else pointed out, a lot of people won't be patient enough to want and wait for this sort of download times; so now take that and expand it to the point of downloading reduced, but complete, television commercials.... Oh yeah, we finally got the vast majority of people to realize that we don't want their page sounds on our machines. I really hated sites which shoved a music loop down on me. So now I'll have to deal with the sound interruptions caused by transferring TV commercials to web pages?
<sarcasm>I can't wait until some greedy bugger puts two or more of these on one page to maximize profit....</sarcasm>
OK, there are two. The personal interaction was always important to me. But the main aspect of any RPG which managed to keep my interests was the flexibility to allow for real freedom of action.
For example, you run into a locked door. How about removing the hinges? Chopping the wood? Going through the transom? Digging out the mortar out around it? Way back when I was DMing the original D&D, my friends would come up with this sort of thing all the time. Of course, it meant I had to constantly be thinking. But that was the whole fun on it. It wasn't "follow the line and use the objects exactly the way we intended" play.
Of course, that's why I didn't use the canned scenarios then, and why I don't play much RPG on the computer today.
Hmm. The same sort of arguments can be made for the Republican party. Today politics seems to be becoming, if that there already, the art of dividing the population, not bringing together.
And then MS will include in Windows for "free" and suddenly its the OS again.
Actually, I mean that in a semi-serious way. If you look at the OSs from way back in the 60s, then the 70s, 80s, 90s and today, you'll see that what is considered part of the OS has changed. That will happen again, I'm sure. So it isn't that the OS is irrelevant, it's really that the OS of today needs to expand itself into a more intuitive view of data, rather than disk\folders\files.
How exactly does "after the Star, the X Window System, the Lisa, and the Mac" qualify as "early"?
Well, I could argue that before the Mac there really wasn't a market for windowed applications. But that would be hedging. So, how about earlier than most application houses?
I don't really know the answer to this, but I think it is basically because:
XML is text, after all
The original use of SOAP wasn't for "stateful" objects, but really as a light weight RPC protocol
The designers were more playing around initially, so they used what transport protocol was available
The designers also were not Network people, but programmers, so the intricacies of creating a new network protocol were more than they wanted to bite off at the time (The old, we'll fix it later, but it never happens syndrome)
Someone thought that it would be "good" for security to use an existing protocol and port
You can use any port you want for SOAP traffic, it doesn't have to be 80 (The old "it's a user error" excuse;-)
Hopefully someone else with more knowledge will pipe in but, from my experience on development projects, that is what I really expect to be what happened.
I also agree with your statement: in reality, you do not want SOAP traffic filtered and controlled in the same way as "standard" HTTP traffic. Maybe version 2.0 will address this. But then, given that the group didn't think that data encryption or user authentication was important enough to be in the original spec, I'm not holding my breath.
MS was virtually non-existant in the applications space till the Windows OS (with its secret apis) became a desktop standard
Well, that isn't 100% true, which of course means that it isn't 100% false also.
What MS did do, was buy, early and completely, into the windowing metaphor. They did make use of undocumented MS Windows APIs, yes. But I really don't believe that made any substantive difference between their products and the competitors.
For example, before MS Windows was ever released, even in V1.0 form, MS was working on its Excel application, on the Mac. Not only that, they listened to the customers and Apple's user interface gurus on how to improve the product. The end result was that when MS Windows 1.0 came out, MS had a reasonably good worksheet program for it; and had a several year head start on the competition in how to create windowed applications.
Anyone who claims that building windowed applications is the same, and a quick port, from DOS based ones hasn't even had to do that port. It isn't easy or intuitive.
Add on to this the fact that many or MS competitors tried to create menu structures and interface conventions different from the "standard" (which, yes, was written by MS) only hurt them. I remember many journalists making a mark for themselves in the early Mac and MS Windows days by just finding and attacking those products which didn't follow the guidelines. (This was particularly true in the Apple world, where not following the guidelines was tantamount to being a satanist during the Spanish Inquisitions.)
Microsoft has done many illegal and morally corrupt actions in their history, including the use of undocumented APIs. But that use of "hidden" APIs was not the main reason their applications succeeded and others failed.
I can really see this. But for one main reason: To keep PC vendors selling consumer Windows boxes. Without the price pressures, Dell et. al. may not bother with offering Linux installed. I can't be sure on this, but if MS moves to this model quickly enough, it could really kill the Linux installed PC market quickly.
Why would MS do that? Well, not only to protect its MS Office, etc. franchise, which it may or may not do. But to keep developers on their side. As long as a majority of "developers" know only Windows programming, and use only MS tools, Microsoft can stay on top in the long run. In fact, MS is starting to show some of this now. Point of Fact, while not requiring it, MS is trying to entice developers to move to a subscription model for the tools. You won't buy VB6 anymore, but a year's worth of development using all MS tools. Paying every year....
Keep developers on your tools, you keep selling the back end to support the applications those tools create.
Remember in big business mindshare is everything.
OTOH, I wouldn't mind MS giving away the OS, because then you'd see much less junk thrown in as part of the OS!
Well, I was worried a little bit, since I don't remember the acid in the first place,.. but I did find the reference I remember.
It was in a popularized science book named The Road to teh Stars by Iain Nicolson (Copyright 1978, Morrow). It references the Daedalus Project pursued by the British Interplanetary Society.
As I remembered, the idea was to use small pellets of deuterium which would be exploded via bombardment of electron beams. See the link for more details about the project. As YuppieScum mentioned, there was also a similar design called Project Orion from the early 1960's, I think.
Now if I could only remember those acid trips everyone is positive I took.....
I didn't see anyone else here mention this. But the company's name shows a level of hubris not normally see.
Pan as a prefix meaning basically all encompassing, for example pandemic. And IP as in, well, Intellectual Property. So the company name itself can be loosely translated as Encompassing all Intellectual Property.
Some things are not covered, like optional surgey, medications, and some quality-of-life coverage.
Why do countries insist on keeping medical policies created on 19th century thinking (Cut 'em or Zap 'em)? I am in favor of government coverage for health care, but I so want it to be reasonable and modern.
So many national healthcare systems, including the US, do not cover medications and I can't understand it. Yes, medications do not necessarily cure the disease, but surgery doesn't always to that as well. But medications are usually much less expensive that the hospital stays they often can reduce or prevent.
Just to be contrary, I also belived in capitalism, so I am against mandatory caps or government declared pricing on anything. My solution is to have the government decide what is the minimally acceptable healthcare for their citizens. Then they should bid it out to the insurance industry, which has shown and has to show it's ability to manage the insurance cost effectively, selecting several companies if not all of them. The government would then provide vouchers for different amounts base on your income, lower incomes can get the basic insurance for free, but don't lose it when their incomes increase. The insurance companies would be able to compete by adding, for an additional cost, additional coverage on top of the government miniamal insurance. Companies should get an incentive to keep their private insurance coverage for their employees.
OK, it's not fully fleshed out, but since government probably doesn't read/., other than the FBI/CIA/NSA, I guess I won't have to....
P.S. these are my personal opinions and do not reflect the interests of my employer or my government.
The real problem isn't when the ground base is destroyed. Done properly, destroying the ground base doesn't effect the cable, which is balanced against the ground base rather than pulling against it. I think I've read that at worse, the dynamics are such that the cable and the end station will lift out of earth orbit. The people on the cable in the station at the time can bail out with the life boats, which will hopefully be required and tested prior to starting this.
OK, so what is the real problem? Most of the designs I've seen or heard about require the cable to be balanced at the top end by some weight in orbit, in one case this is a equal length of cable sent up into higher orbit. Now, what happens if this weight is cut off by a meteor or missile? You have a cable 2.5 times Earth's circumference crashing down to earth. Think about that. The earth's equator being whipped two and a half times by a cable strong enough to withstand the forces required for the space elevator!
I'm not sure what the energy output looks like, but I would bet the results would not be pretty.
So why not apply the same restriction on the undelete folder. In fact it seems that the undelete folder could have even more security built on it. Because not only should executables not be run from it, but none of the files in there should really be read or modified.
The only allowable actions on undelete folder items are to move them back out of the undelete folder or to perform the final true delete on them.
OK, either you don't wish to understand what I meant, or maybe you really don't believe it. Not my problem.
But I still feel that everyone is so concerned about securing the starting point for transactions, that they totally ignore the security during transmission and the at the end point, which has to keep some aspect of the starting point to validate it.
Slashdot Mirror
I may be off base here, but every time I see what is effectively a "There will be too much data for them to abuse (or attack one person)" I think the following:
That sounds, and is, silly; you only need to use a small part of the border to cross illegally. I think the "too much data" argument is equally silly. You don't need to use all of the data provided to perform illegal actions, just a small part of it. Similarly, adding a bunch of noise won't prevent someone from being persecuted because they emailed the same phrase as a joke.
Putting data into one place is dangerous, period.
They can already subpoena banks, airlines, get your criminal records etc... so what if the FBI can access your records at any time?
That is the whole point! Yes the FBI can get this information, but first they have to prove to a judge that there is probable cause that you are breaking the law. They can't just walk down the hallway and say, give me everything on X and don't ask why.
The US Constitution and laws are built this way for a reason. There is a whole system of Checks and Balances to help prevent misuse of power. To prevent, specifically, the tyranny the colonies were living with under the English rule. How have those goals to prevent tyranny changed in 200 years?
That haven't; some politicians have just forgotten why the country was formed.
Come on everyone, this whole post is basic 9th grade civics.
I really love this quote from the article: "Both the 300X250 and 180X150 ad units feature similar proportions to TV, enabling easier creative development." I guess someone has been smelling the convergence fumes too long.
As someone else pointed out, a lot of people won't be patient enough to want and wait for this sort of download times; so now take that and expand it to the point of downloading reduced, but complete, television commercials.... Oh yeah, we finally got the vast majority of people to realize that we don't want their page sounds on our machines. I really hated sites which shoved a music loop down on me. So now I'll have to deal with the sound interruptions caused by transferring TV commercials to web pages?
<sarcasm>I can't wait until some greedy bugger puts two or more of these on one page to maximize profit....</sarcasm>
OK, there are two. The personal interaction was always important to me. But the main aspect of any RPG which managed to keep my interests was the flexibility to allow for real freedom of action.
For example, you run into a locked door. How about removing the hinges? Chopping the wood? Going through the transom? Digging out the mortar out around it? Way back when I was DMing the original D&D, my friends would come up with this sort of thing all the time. Of course, it meant I had to constantly be thinking. But that was the whole fun on it. It wasn't "follow the line and use the objects exactly the way we intended" play.
Of course, that's why I didn't use the canned scenarios then, and why I don't play much RPG on the computer today.
Man that would be great! But only if the stick with the earlier stuff.
Hmm. The same sort of arguments can be made for the Republican party. Today politics seems to be becoming, if that there already, the art of dividing the population, not bringing together.
Maybe they wanted to show this side of their face, but the PR department wouldn't let them. Hence it's location on the "a fairly insecure server."
And then MS will include in Windows for "free" and suddenly its the OS again.
Actually, I mean that in a semi-serious way. If you look at the OSs from way back in the 60s, then the 70s, 80s, 90s and today, you'll see that what is considered part of the OS has changed. That will happen again, I'm sure. So it isn't that the OS is irrelevant, it's really that the OS of today needs to expand itself into a more intuitive view of data, rather than disk\folders\files.
MS is going to use an XML document to replace PDFs? Isn't this what XSL:FO was designed for?
How exactly does "after the Star, the X Window System, the Lisa, and the Mac" qualify as "early"?
Well, I could argue that before the Mac there really wasn't a market for windowed applications. But that would be hedging. So, how about earlier than most application houses?
I don't really know the answer to this, but I think it is basically because:
Hopefully someone else with more knowledge will pipe in but, from my experience on development projects, that is what I really expect to be what happened.
I also agree with your statement: in reality, you do not want SOAP traffic filtered and controlled in the same way as "standard" HTTP traffic. Maybe version 2.0 will address this. But then, given that the group didn't think that data encryption or user authentication was important enough to be in the original spec, I'm not holding my breath.
MS was virtually non-existant in the applications space till the Windows OS (with its secret apis) became a desktop standard
Well, that isn't 100% true, which of course means that it isn't 100% false also.
What MS did do, was buy, early and completely, into the windowing metaphor. They did make use of undocumented MS Windows APIs, yes. But I really don't believe that made any substantive difference between their products and the competitors.
For example, before MS Windows was ever released, even in V1.0 form, MS was working on its Excel application, on the Mac. Not only that, they listened to the customers and Apple's user interface gurus on how to improve the product. The end result was that when MS Windows 1.0 came out, MS had a reasonably good worksheet program for it; and had a several year head start on the competition in how to create windowed applications.
Anyone who claims that building windowed applications is the same, and a quick port, from DOS based ones hasn't even had to do that port. It isn't easy or intuitive.
Add on to this the fact that many or MS competitors tried to create menu structures and interface conventions different from the "standard" (which, yes, was written by MS) only hurt them. I remember many journalists making a mark for themselves in the early Mac and MS Windows days by just finding and attacking those products which didn't follow the guidelines. (This was particularly true in the Apple world, where not following the guidelines was tantamount to being a satanist during the Spanish Inquisitions.)
Microsoft has done many illegal and morally corrupt actions in their history, including the use of undocumented APIs. But that use of "hidden" APIs was not the main reason their applications succeeded and others failed.
I can really see this. But for one main reason: To keep PC vendors selling consumer Windows boxes. Without the price pressures, Dell et. al. may not bother with offering Linux installed. I can't be sure on this, but if MS moves to this model quickly enough, it could really kill the Linux installed PC market quickly.
Why would MS do that? Well, not only to protect its MS Office, etc. franchise, which it may or may not do. But to keep developers on their side. As long as a majority of "developers" know only Windows programming, and use only MS tools, Microsoft can stay on top in the long run. In fact, MS is starting to show some of this now. Point of Fact, while not requiring it, MS is trying to entice developers to move to a subscription model for the tools. You won't buy VB6 anymore, but a year's worth of development using all MS tools. Paying every year....
Keep developers on your tools, you keep selling the back end to support the applications those tools create.
Remember in big business mindshare is everything.
OTOH, I wouldn't mind MS giving away the OS, because then you'd see much less junk thrown in as part of the OS!
have heard of nothing as addictive and will-sapping as Instant Messenger.
What about IRC?
Well, I was worried a little bit, since I don't remember the acid in the first place,.. but I did find the reference I remember.
It was in a popularized science book named The Road to teh Stars by Iain Nicolson (Copyright 1978, Morrow). It references the Daedalus Project pursued by the British Interplanetary Society.
As I remembered, the idea was to use small pellets of deuterium which would be exploded via bombardment of electron beams. See the link for more details about the project. As YuppieScum mentioned, there was also a similar design called Project Orion from the early 1960's, I think.
Now if I could only remember those acid trips everyone is positive I took.....
I didn't see anyone else here mention this. But the company's name shows a level of hubris not normally see.
Pan as a prefix meaning basically all encompassing, for example pandemic. And IP as in, well, Intellectual Property. So the company name itself can be loosely translated as Encompassing all Intellectual Property.
What a name. What egotists!
Some things are not covered, like optional surgey, medications, and some quality-of-life coverage.
Why do countries insist on keeping medical policies created on 19th century thinking (Cut 'em or Zap 'em)? I am in favor of government coverage for health care, but I so want it to be reasonable and modern.
So many national healthcare systems, including the US, do not cover medications and I can't understand it. Yes, medications do not necessarily cure the disease, but surgery doesn't always to that as well. But medications are usually much less expensive that the hospital stays they often can reduce or prevent.
Just to be contrary, I also belived in capitalism, so I am against mandatory caps or government declared pricing on anything. My solution is to have the government decide what is the minimally acceptable healthcare for their citizens. Then they should bid it out to the insurance industry, which has shown and has to show it's ability to manage the insurance cost effectively, selecting several companies if not all of them. The government would then provide vouchers for different amounts base on your income, lower incomes can get the basic insurance for free, but don't lose it when their incomes increase. The insurance companies would be able to compete by adding, for an additional cost, additional coverage on top of the government miniamal insurance. Companies should get an incentive to keep their private insurance coverage for their employees.
OK, it's not fully fleshed out, but since government probably doesn't read /., other than the FBI/CIA/NSA, I guess I won't have to....
P.S. these are my personal opinions and do not reflect the interests of my employer or my government.
The real problem isn't when the ground base is destroyed. Done properly, destroying the ground base doesn't effect the cable, which is balanced against the ground base rather than pulling against it. I think I've read that at worse, the dynamics are such that the cable and the end station will lift out of earth orbit. The people on the cable in the station at the time can bail out with the life boats, which will hopefully be required and tested prior to starting this.
OK, so what is the real problem? Most of the designs I've seen or heard about require the cable to be balanced at the top end by some weight in orbit, in one case this is a equal length of cable sent up into higher orbit. Now, what happens if this weight is cut off by a meteor or missile? You have a cable 2.5 times Earth's circumference crashing down to earth. Think about that. The earth's equator being whipped two and a half times by a cable strong enough to withstand the forces required for the space elevator!
I'm not sure what the energy output looks like, but I would bet the results would not be pretty.
Then things can really sneak up on you.
Think of /. not as an Omelette but as a stew. Something floats to the bottom one day only to float back up the next.
So why not apply the same restriction on the undelete folder. In fact it seems that the undelete folder could have even more security built on it. Because not only should executables not be run from it, but none of the files in there should really be read or modified.
The only allowable actions on undelete folder items are to move them back out of the undelete folder or to perform the final true delete on them.
Sure, some people use it as temporary folder, but so what? ... If you need tmp storage use /tmp.
And how long before virus writers realize this and start explicitly infecting the /tmp folder?
I've been around long enough to know what's what.
OK, either you don't wish to understand what I meant, or maybe you really don't believe it. Not my problem.
But I still feel that everyone is so concerned about securing the starting point for transactions, that they totally ignore the security during transmission and the at the end point, which has to keep some aspect of the starting point to validate it.
Oops. Sorry for the extraneous junk. That was my first post here!