I have a Belkin wireless gateway/router, and I'm (obviously) worried about an exploit. Anyone heard of any exploit code in the wild yet?
The *SECOND* an exploit is in the wild I am going to call Belkin and demand my money back. No way in hell am I paying for the "privilege" of being hacked and spammed by a device is is SUPPOSED to be a firewall to my network!...what the hell were they thinking...
This new version does more to prevent false headers, spoofing, and lying about the origins of communications. With this stronger protocol we can virtually *prove* who did what, and go after anyone that doesn't play nice.
...but in those days people were able to send their "nudie pictures" to eachother by decomposing a nekked girlie's picture into combinations of printable characters, then sending them to eachother's teletypes. I encountered this on both early BBS's and on amateur radio over RTTY (which, by the way, still uses the old baudot codes in some modes) a looooooong time ago (can we coin "P.I."? Pre-Internet? Kinda like B.C. and A.D.). Pretty silly, I know, but it was one of the earliest forms of "digital pr0n" I know of. You could hang it above your ham shack until "the wife" got a look at it and made you tear it down.:
This isn't so much about security as it is poor design on the part of microsoft leaving so many useless services exposed to the internet.
Don't forget the fact that Microsoft didn't "get it" about the Internet until very late in the game. They had added this RPC-based networking into Windows *well* before even considering "exposing [your PC] to the Internet".
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was a major boon to businesses, adding the much-needed printer sharing, file sharing, (etc.) that Netware had - but at that time the Internet was not even on Microsoft's radar screen. It's no wonder that Microsoft, being largely ignorant of the Internet and its protocols, insecurities, (etc.), would design its features without considering the ramifications of a malicious, Internet-propagated worm attacking a worldwide community of like-configured WfW machines. It was just not in their mindset.
So, along comes ol'e Mister Bill, plugging along like he and his company (not Al Gore) invented this "Internet thingy", not even considering that by promoting interconnectedness over the Internet - and simultaneously maintaining backward-compatibility with the RPC (et al) "features" of yesteryear - they were setting the stage to make possible these world-scale attacks.
Suffice it to say that Microsoft has "maintained compatibility" (read: propagated bugs, bad design and archaic protocols) since WfW till now. Perhaps that will help you understand why these services are "exposed to the Internet" in the first place - they've always been there, even before Microsoft "got" the Internet.
The spammer could include a link that is not visible, (or at least obscured), knowing that only a link-harvester would ever follow it. Any source IP that followed the obscured link would be denoted as a 'bot, and any IP that didn't would be identified as a human being responding to the spam.
Not good when your attempts to mess up the spammer helps them figure out the real users from the 'bots (IMHO).
It's not concrete in the sense that it matches what we're making today. So what? The fact that we can't make the same thing doesn't change anything about the truth (or lack thereof) of the theory. It's a simple solution to one of the supposed great mysteries of the world.
So the Egyptians, in addition to the development of geometry, the number zero (if I'm not mistaken), and the like, invented a very cool form of concrete - albeit unlike what we've "invented" since then.
Big deal. It's still remarkable that they spent so much time making the pyramids, even if the way they were made is relatively straightforward.
* Mathematical Model - So-called "attraction" (force) is equal to the product of the two masses, the gravitational constant (G) and the inverse square of the distance between the masses. (Physics 101)
* Succinct explanations - You're joking, right? Apple falls, hits Newton on the head, blah blah blah...? (Physics 101/History 201) - though it's disputed whether or not the apple actually hit him.
* Predictions about future behaviors - What ARE you talking about? What does "behaviors" have to do with the source of the gravitational force? Behaviors are reserved to systems (including living beings, for the sake of argument). The force in question is a force, expressed as a vector. It has a magnitude and a direction. That's it. Any "behavior" would be an attribute of the system that the force is being considered within. These behaviors do not speak to the magnitude, direction, (or source, for that matter), of the gravitational force itself.
* What evidence could come up with [sic] - If I had evidence to disprove my theory, the scientific method would require me to withdraw it from consideration. Since I have no evidence to disprove it (for now), it's still my hypothesis.
Of course this is science. Research "The Scientific Method". In simple terms it flows as such - A) Observe. B) Create hypothesis. C) Test hypothesis. D) If test fails, discard or modify hypothesis and return to C). If test succeeds, either return to C) directly, or modify hypothesis and return to C). BTW - I value my mind and my physical health far too much to destroy either with smoking (crack or otherwise).
Gravity is the LACK of OPPOSING force, caused by a local absorption of this so-called "dark energy" by a local mass. In effect, gravity is a "shadow" produced by the blocking of the dark energy's repulsion from one direction. The net effect of which is to accelerate one body towards another, as each "feels" the "shadow" - the reduced opposition - from the direction of the other.
My God, why does science take so long to realize its sillyness? What about all the "proof" that the Earth was the center of the universe? The ancient Egyptians believed that they could "prove" this fallacy by accurately predicting the location of any planet in the night sky as it precedes. Yes, their math was correct, but Kepler showed us (through orbital mechanics) that the Egyptians' conclusion was wrong - that the Earth was *not* the center of the universe. What the Egyptians had done was A) calculate the Earth's position, relative to the sun, B) calculate the planet's position, also relative to the sun, and C) combine the two equations into one. Hidden in the so-called "proof" of the Egyptians was the new proof that the Sun was the center of our universe.
Gravity is not an attraction, as "attractive" an idea as that may seem to be. Get over it. Don't even get me started about (one of) the laws of motion - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Where is the "reaction" to the gravity "reaching out and grabbing" the other body?......whatever...
Not only do I rejoice that JBoss will obtain J2EE certification (you don't doubt it, if they're shelling out the $$, do you?), I *need* them to obtain it.
The single reason that my company gave to me for not using JBoss, and, instead, settling on the expensive, monolithic, do-it-this-way-or-be-damned "application server" from WebLogic was... "JBoss is not J2EE certified."
I would have given my right nut to have been able to say "oh, yes they are!"
We're still dealing with rollout/stability/cost/upgrade-track issues that came along with the "priviledge" of paying tens-of-thousands of dollars for something that is absolutely free. Heck, we could have afforded to hire a brand spankin' new programmer JUST to keep an eye on these servers, had we used JBoss, and saved the money for licenses, upgrades, down-time, over-time (etc).
I just don't get it... all this press about open-source, not to mention rapant capitalism/downsizing/squeezing every penny out of everything, and yet the dolts in the corner offices still act all stupid, shelling out megabucks for some marketing-driven, bug-laden piece of crap software - when all the while, high-quality, *actually usable* software is there for the taking for zip, zero, nada. I just don't get it...
Every theory for decades concerning the building of the pyramids assumes that there was enough wood available at the time to build structures, ramps, cranes (of sorts), and - now, rocking devices - to support/move/position/sculpt massive-ton rocks.
Why not apply Ockham's razor to the problem? Why couldn't the Egyptians just have created the world's first "concrete mix"?
How hard would it have been? Pound a few rocks to get powder, shlep the powder in simple baskets/bowls to the site, add water, and - viola. You got your bajillion-ton "rocks" up hundreds of feet without any "high-tech" (for the time) tools?
The battle cry of "Innocent until proven guilty!" is the mark of somebody ignorant about the way that our government works.
Wow. You sound very angry, and degrading everyone that doesn't believe the same thing as you do does not help support your position.
Additionally, you missed the point. You can't go around suing everyone and every thing every time the wind blows just because technically you can. The Judicial system is set up to address grievances, not waste everyone's time.
Pretending to have a grievance does not give you the right to sue someone. (Note: I said pretending.) There is absolutely no link between cause and effect here - the cause being that someone bought a particular xyz-programming-gadget, and the effect - that someone stole DirecTV programming. This is the point. Pretending that there is a causal relationship between the two does not merit a lawsuit. Oh, sure, it's legal to sue someone for this, but it'll get thrown out by the first judge who tests its merits (somethig every judge is required to do).
So, in short, it's about the protection of innocents from frivilous lawsuits, not a statement of absolute fact, right-to-sue, etc.
Please post your position, not insult others; it makes the conversation more interesting.
It may be a little harder to configure, let alone mis-configure, a Linux box than a Windows box. So, if the Red Hat's of the world would close all security loopholes BY DEFAULT, most "lusers" (parent-poster's word) wouldn't even know they were being good netizens by putting up a fairly-well-secured server, instead of a totally-hackable-and-vulnerable server.
If only to close loopholes by default, Linux could make the 'net safer for other users. If only to run Linux - which has myriad less exploitable holes - Linux also would make the net a better/safer place, indeed.
If you are aware of such a video rental store doing exactly this thing, then submit information about it (store name, phone number, how long they've offered this service, etc) to the PTO as evidence of prior art.
They'll invalidate the patent. (Or at least that portion of the patent.)
I'm not sure the "average" programmer today could actually write bug-free code, given the typical work environment he's placed in.
How many times have you ACTUALLY been given all of the development/test/debugger software licenses that you've asked for? If you're like me, every time you say you need 12 IDE licenses and 3 debugger licenses, plus a copy of bounds-checker, you'll get (maybe) 2 IDE's, 1 debugger (if you're lucky), and no bounds-checker.
Microsoft Corp. has filed multiple lawsuits against people it says are responsible for flooding The Internet (well, that's what Microsoft thinks it's MSN service is...) with more than 2 billion spam messages.
Before my private property is seized or destroyed, I expect my constututional rights, specifically, those spelled out in the 4th amendment, to be respected.
The Government must not seize or destroy private property without that property's owner being granted due process. And I surely do not consent to a private industry lobbying group (the RIAA) taking the place of The Government, and trouncing that right, either.
If you have done so, please do not continue to advocate the destruction of private property, even under The Best Intentions(tm), or "boosting commerce". If you want to advocate the seizure or destruction of personal assets under ANY circumstances, please only consider doing so after granting the intended victim their constitutionally-guaranteed right of due process.
NASA's "Mars Rovers" homepage at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/ says the next rover is scheduled for liftoff June 25, 2003. Another cool portal for the rover missions is http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/
I think there is a much clearer explanation to why software still crashes - there is no human element involved in the actual execution of the work that the software is doing.
Jets, for example, have auto-pilot, yet a pilot will turn it off if they detect a problem. What software, after being installed to drive C: will - in the course of trying to create some alternate version of your work - detect that the C: drive is becoming full, and pop up a menu that says - "Hey! The default-configured drive is getting full. Which drive do you want to use, instead?"
That kind of interface - the one that allows human interaction when a slight error is correctable - does not exist. This causes even a slight error to propagate its effects, grow in consequence, and ultimately lead to a complete crash.
A hammer is no good without the power of a human brain to continuously compute a trajectory, and moderate the muscular control of same. I believe we should consider writing applications and operating environments wherein this human-brain-powered "intervention" is available, if not required. Until the software allows (or requires) such interaction, we will still have code that can not adapt to the simplest issue, and will crash beyond all measure.
I dare you to fill up your C: drive when Windows is managing your virtual memory on "C:\pagefile.sys". Windows will go "boink"...!
Perhaps programmers (myself included) are trying to "package" too much work - too much functionality, without involving the user. We assume (ass-u-me) that the user is relatively unsophisticated, and we do things "for them". Maybe we should stop being so condescending, and let them "have more say" while the work is being performed... even let them play around a bit? $.02.
Let's confront the (Deutsch's) Seven Fallacies of the Network:
1: The Network is reliable 2: Latency is zero 3: Bandwidth is infinite 4: The Network is secure 5: Topology doesn't change 6: There is one administrator 7: Transport cost is zero
Grid computing addresses 1, 4, and 7 IMHO, yet leaves 2 and 3 unsolved. Since you can't even solve the "infinite bandwidth" issue with Grid computing, I submit that "Grid Computing" isn't The Last Word (tm) on computing...
But you miss one thing - Lacking documentation, no code, no matter how "perfectly OO" it is - can be reused. The potential reusers are afraid of "artifacts", and unknown behaviors, and - since programmers never document their API's unless threatened to burn in hell - they have no way of knowing what the code will do. Logical conclusion? Roll your own, and 0wn it. Why is Java even on anyone's radar scope? Because Sun put up the entire API - every single method, package, inheritance tree, etc - on the Web. NO WAY IN HELL would I even consider using their Buffered-this-and-that classes (much less URL and XML classes!) if there were no doc's available.
Unless and until programmers are forced at gunpoint to document their code will there be even anything near 40% or more code reuse. If you're lucky, and YOU wrote the code, even YOU might be able to reuse, maybe 20% of your own code on another project.
Let's hear it for making a language that STARTS with documentation (akin to Java's Interface specs) and THEN AND ONLY then allows you to attach code to it. What say you?
If I'm interrupted, it's like the train fell off a cliff.
I concur, cap'n! That train will no longer function, and any new one(s) sent from the "station" (the original idea) will not achieve the speed, nor contain the same "freight" as the original. Sometimes, the only thing that can be done is to perform forensic evaluation of the "crash scene", and hope to discover the contents of the now-desiccated vehicles.
Nine times out of ten, though, your old "Highball Express" was one in a million...
Slashdot Mirror
I have a Belkin wireless gateway/router, and I'm (obviously) worried about an exploit. Anyone heard of any exploit code in the wild yet?
...what the hell were they thinking...
The *SECOND* an exploit is in the wild I am going to call Belkin and demand my money back. No way in hell am I paying for the "privilege" of being hacked and spammed by a device is is SUPPOSED to be a firewall to my network!
"My God, it's full of... fur!" - Dave Bowman, circa 2003
Short Answer: Migrate to IPV6.
This new version does more to prevent false headers, spoofing, and lying about the origins of communications. With this stronger protocol we can virtually *prove* who did what, and go after anyone that doesn't play nice.
...but in those days people were able to send their "nudie pictures" to eachother by decomposing a nekked girlie's picture into combinations of printable characters, then sending them to eachother's teletypes. I encountered this on both early BBS's and on amateur radio over RTTY (which, by the way, still uses the old baudot codes in some modes) a looooooong time ago (can we coin "P.I."? Pre-Internet? Kinda like B.C. and A.D.). Pretty silly, I know, but it was one of the earliest forms of "digital pr0n" I know of. You could hang it above your ham shack until "the wife" got a look at it and made you tear it down. :
Just *try* to make a nudie pic on an abacus!
Don't forget the fact that Microsoft didn't "get it" about the Internet until very late in the game. They had added this RPC-based networking into Windows *well* before even considering "exposing [your PC] to the Internet".
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was a major boon to businesses, adding the much-needed printer sharing, file sharing, (etc.) that Netware had - but at that time the Internet was not even on Microsoft's radar screen. It's no wonder that Microsoft, being largely ignorant of the Internet and its protocols, insecurities, (etc.), would design its features without considering the ramifications of a malicious, Internet-propagated worm attacking a worldwide community of like-configured WfW machines. It was just not in their mindset.
So, along comes ol'e Mister Bill, plugging along like he and his company (not Al Gore) invented this "Internet thingy", not even considering that by promoting interconnectedness over the Internet - and simultaneously maintaining backward-compatibility with the RPC (et al) "features" of yesteryear - they were setting the stage to make possible these world-scale attacks.
Suffice it to say that Microsoft has "maintained compatibility" (read: propagated bugs, bad design and archaic protocols) since WfW till now. Perhaps that will help you understand why these services are "exposed to the Internet" in the first place - they've always been there, even before Microsoft "got" the Internet.
The number has been changed. It's now 1-888-5-OPT-OUT.
The number has been changed. It's now 1-888-OPT-OUT.
Even better -
The spammer could include a link that is not visible, (or at least obscured), knowing that only a link-harvester would ever follow it. Any source IP that followed the obscured link would be denoted as a 'bot, and any IP that didn't would be identified as a human being responding to the spam.
Not good when your attempts to mess up the spammer helps them figure out the real users from the 'bots (IMHO).
It's not concrete in the sense that it matches what we're making today. So what? The fact that we can't make the same thing doesn't change anything about the truth (or lack thereof) of the theory. It's a simple solution to one of the supposed great mysteries of the world.
So the Egyptians, in addition to the development of geometry, the number zero (if I'm not mistaken), and the like, invented a very cool form of concrete - albeit unlike what we've "invented" since then.
Big deal. It's still remarkable that they spent so much time making the pyramids, even if the way they were made is relatively straightforward.
* Mathematical Model - So-called "attraction" (force) is equal to the product of the two masses, the gravitational constant (G) and the inverse square of the distance between the masses. (Physics 101)
* Succinct explanations - You're joking, right? Apple falls, hits Newton on the head, blah blah blah...? (Physics 101/History 201) - though it's disputed whether or not the apple actually hit him.
* Predictions about future behaviors - What ARE you talking about? What does "behaviors" have to do with the source of the gravitational force? Behaviors are reserved to systems (including living beings, for the sake of argument). The force in question is a force, expressed as a vector. It has a magnitude and a direction. That's it. Any "behavior" would be an attribute of the system that the force is being considered within. These behaviors do not speak to the magnitude, direction, (or source, for that matter), of the gravitational force itself.
* What evidence could come up with [sic] - If I had evidence to disprove my theory, the scientific method would require me to withdraw it from consideration. Since I have no evidence to disprove it (for now), it's still my hypothesis.
Of course this is science. Research "The Scientific Method". In simple terms it flows as such - A) Observe. B) Create hypothesis. C) Test hypothesis. D) If test fails, discard or modify hypothesis and return to C). If test succeeds, either return to C) directly, or modify hypothesis and return to C).
BTW - I value my mind and my physical health far too much to destroy either with smoking (crack or otherwise).
Gravity IS NOT ATTRACTIVE, and is not a force.
...whatever...
Gravity is the LACK of OPPOSING force, caused by a local absorption of this so-called "dark energy" by a local mass. In effect, gravity is a "shadow" produced by the blocking of the dark energy's repulsion from one direction. The net effect of which is to accelerate one body towards another, as each "feels" the "shadow" - the reduced opposition - from the direction of the other.
My God, why does science take so long to realize its sillyness? What about all the "proof" that the Earth was the center of the universe? The ancient Egyptians believed that they could "prove" this fallacy by accurately predicting the location of any planet in the night sky as it precedes. Yes, their math was correct, but Kepler showed us (through orbital mechanics) that the Egyptians' conclusion was wrong - that the Earth was *not* the center of the universe. What the Egyptians had done was A) calculate the Earth's position, relative to the sun, B) calculate the planet's position, also relative to the sun, and C) combine the two equations into one. Hidden in the so-called "proof" of the Egyptians was the new proof that the Sun was the center of our universe.
Gravity is not an attraction, as "attractive" an idea as that may seem to be. Get over it. Don't even get me started about (one of) the laws of motion - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Where is the "reaction" to the gravity "reaching out and grabbing" the other body?...
Not only do I rejoice that JBoss will obtain J2EE certification (you don't doubt it, if they're shelling out the $$, do you?), I *need* them to obtain it.
The single reason that my company gave to me for not using JBoss, and, instead, settling on the expensive, monolithic, do-it-this-way-or-be-damned "application server" from WebLogic was... "JBoss is not J2EE certified."
I would have given my right nut to have been able to say "oh, yes they are!"
We're still dealing with rollout/stability/cost/upgrade-track issues that came along with the "priviledge" of paying tens-of-thousands of dollars for something that is absolutely free. Heck, we could have afforded to hire a brand spankin' new programmer JUST to keep an eye on these servers, had we used JBoss, and saved the money for licenses, upgrades, down-time, over-time (etc).
I just don't get it... all this press about open-source, not to mention rapant capitalism/downsizing/squeezing every penny out of everything, and yet the dolts in the corner offices still act all stupid, shelling out megabucks for some marketing-driven, bug-laden piece of crap software - when all the while, high-quality, *actually usable* software is there for the taking for zip, zero, nada. I just don't get it...
Every theory for decades concerning the building of the pyramids assumes that there was enough wood available at the time to build structures, ramps, cranes (of sorts), and - now, rocking devices - to support/move/position/sculpt massive-ton rocks.
Why not apply Ockham's razor to the problem? Why couldn't the Egyptians just have created the world's first "concrete mix"?
How hard would it have been? Pound a few rocks to get powder, shlep the powder in simple baskets/bowls to the site, add water, and - viola. You got your bajillion-ton "rocks" up hundreds of feet without any "high-tech" (for the time) tools?
How come nobody every posits that theory...
Wow. You sound very angry, and degrading everyone that doesn't believe the same thing as you do does not help support your position.
Additionally, you missed the point. You can't go around suing everyone and every thing every time the wind blows just because technically you can. The Judicial system is set up to address grievances, not waste everyone's time.
Pretending to have a grievance does not give you the right to sue someone. (Note: I said pretending.) There is absolutely no link between cause and effect here - the cause being that someone bought a particular xyz-programming-gadget, and the effect - that someone stole DirecTV programming. This is the point. Pretending that there is a causal relationship between the two does not merit a lawsuit. Oh, sure, it's legal to sue someone for this, but it'll get thrown out by the first judge who tests its merits (somethig every judge is required to do).
So, in short, it's about the protection of innocents from frivilous lawsuits, not a statement of absolute fact, right-to-sue, etc.
Please post your position, not insult others; it makes the conversation more interesting.
...what ever happened to that mantra? (Did the RIAA kill it?)
It may be a little harder to configure, let alone mis-configure, a Linux box than a Windows box. So, if the Red Hat's of the world would close all security loopholes BY DEFAULT, most "lusers" (parent-poster's word) wouldn't even know they were being good netizens by putting up a fairly-well-secured server, instead of a totally-hackable-and-vulnerable server.
If only to close loopholes by default, Linux could make the 'net safer for other users. If only to run Linux - which has myriad less exploitable holes - Linux also would make the net a better/safer place, indeed.
If you are aware of such a video rental store doing exactly this thing, then submit information about it (store name, phone number, how long they've offered this service, etc) to the PTO as evidence of prior art.
They'll invalidate the patent. (Or at least that portion of the patent.)
You'll be a hero to millions! (LOL)
I'm not sure the "average" programmer today could actually write bug-free code, given the typical work environment he's placed in.
How many times have you ACTUALLY been given all of the development/test/debugger software licenses that you've asked for? If you're like me, every time you say you need 12 IDE licenses and 3 debugger licenses, plus a copy of bounds-checker, you'll get (maybe) 2 IDE's, 1 debugger (if you're lucky), and no bounds-checker.
Sorry, can't develop bug-free code without tools.
Microsoft Corp. has filed multiple lawsuits against people it says are responsible for flooding The Internet (well, that's what Microsoft thinks it's MSN service is...) with more than 2 billion spam messages.
o gyNews&storyID=2945425
URL - http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technol
Before my private property is seized or destroyed, I expect my constututional rights, specifically, those spelled out in the 4th amendment, to be respected.
The Government must not seize or destroy private property without that property's owner being granted due process. And I surely do not consent to a private industry lobbying group (the RIAA) taking the place of The Government, and trouncing that right, either.
If you have done so, please do not continue to advocate the destruction of private property, even under The Best Intentions(tm), or "boosting commerce". If you want to advocate the seizure or destruction of personal assets under ANY circumstances, please only consider doing so after granting the intended victim their constitutionally-guaranteed right of due process.
NASA's "Mars Rovers" homepage at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/ says the next rover is scheduled for liftoff June 25, 2003. Another cool portal for the rover missions is http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/
I think there is a much clearer explanation to why software still crashes - there is no human element involved in the actual execution of the work that the software is doing.
Jets, for example, have auto-pilot, yet a pilot will turn it off if they detect a problem. What software, after being installed to drive C: will - in the course of trying to create some alternate version of your work - detect that the C: drive is becoming full, and pop up a menu that says - "Hey! The default-configured drive is getting full. Which drive do you want to use, instead?"
That kind of interface - the one that allows human interaction when a slight error is correctable - does not exist. This causes even a slight error to propagate its effects, grow in consequence, and ultimately lead to a complete crash.
A hammer is no good without the power of a human brain to continuously compute a trajectory, and moderate the muscular control of same. I believe we should consider writing applications and operating environments wherein this human-brain-powered "intervention" is available, if not required. Until the software allows (or requires) such interaction, we will still have code that can not adapt to the simplest issue, and will crash beyond all measure.
I dare you to fill up your C: drive when Windows is managing your virtual memory on "C:\pagefile.sys". Windows will go "boink"...!
Perhaps programmers (myself included) are trying to "package" too much work - too much functionality, without involving the user. We assume (ass-u-me) that the user is relatively unsophisticated, and we do things "for them". Maybe we should stop being so condescending, and let them "have more say" while the work is being performed... even let them play around a bit?
$.02.
Let's confront the (Deutsch's) Seven Fallacies of the Network:
1: The Network is reliable
2: Latency is zero
3: Bandwidth is infinite
4: The Network is secure
5: Topology doesn't change
6: There is one administrator
7: Transport cost is zero
Grid computing addresses 1, 4, and 7 IMHO, yet leaves 2 and 3 unsolved. Since you can't even solve the "infinite bandwidth" issue with Grid computing, I submit that "Grid Computing" isn't The Last Word (tm) on computing...
But you miss one thing - Lacking documentation, no code, no matter how "perfectly OO" it is - can be reused. The potential reusers are afraid of "artifacts", and unknown behaviors, and - since programmers never document their API's unless threatened to burn in hell - they have no way of knowing what the code will do. Logical conclusion? Roll your own, and 0wn it. Why is Java even on anyone's radar scope? Because Sun put up the entire API - every single method, package, inheritance tree, etc - on the Web. NO WAY IN HELL would I even consider using their Buffered-this-and-that classes (much less URL and XML classes!) if there were no doc's available.
Unless and until programmers are forced at gunpoint to document their code will there be even anything near 40% or more code reuse. If you're lucky, and YOU wrote the code, even YOU might be able to reuse, maybe 20% of your own code on another project.
Let's hear it for making a language that STARTS with documentation (akin to Java's Interface specs) and THEN AND ONLY then allows you to attach code to it. What say you?
I concur, cap'n! That train will no longer function, and any new one(s) sent from the "station" (the original idea) will not achieve the speed, nor contain the same "freight" as the original. Sometimes, the only thing that can be done is to perform forensic evaluation of the "crash scene", and hope to discover the contents of the now-desiccated vehicles.
Nine times out of ten, though, your old "Highball Express" was one in a million...