We've had the ability to encrypt email for years, and we battled for PGP, yet no one uses it.
The question is how do you get people to encrypt email by default, particularly when it requires participation by both sides. Add this challenge to IM.
The real criminals are Congress, who created laws and regulations (or ignored the need to create either), that are harming our economy. Let's begin with their refusal to correct the continued IRS persecution of 1099s in the tech labor market for that past 15 years, driving up the costs of US labor by requiring middlemen to take as much as 70% of the share before the skilled resource receives their W-2, causing countless technology jobs to go overseas in markets that are not regulated by the IRS. If congress passes a law stopping the IRS from punishing corporations that bring in independent contractors, then our economy can begin to experience real growth again as companies can hire more US based tech workers for the same amount of money, while US tech workers can earn higher pay.
Then there were years of warnings where Congress was informed annually that there was a huge capital exodus from US markets in all types of securities EXCEPT debt securities since 2001. This capital flight in our stock markets was because our production markets became comparatively uncompetitive, also in part due to a tax regime that continued to encourage companies to move operations overseas.
Yet, does Congress accept blame for their actions leading up to the global economic crisis and continuing today as we have very high unemployment and anemic growth? Do they pass the simple laws needed to fix this, which do not require any spending, but merely correcting the economic unintended consequences of a tax policy that is clearly broken in a new technologically based dynamic global playing field?
No! Instead, they try to point the finger at anyone else they can so that no one notices that they are the cause of our problems. Worse yet, they avoid the very simple change needed to fix things because if they passed these laws, people might ask the question, "why did it take so long to realize these fixes were needed?" Their fear of being identified as the cause is the reason they continue to keep the status quo path that prevents us from enjoying the economic prosperity we built our country on.
I am angry at Congress, because they care more about popularity and being elected than actually doing what is needed to put our country on a solid path of economic growth. They refuse to admit to and repent for their past mistakes, and continue to blame others because they are more about re-election than our childrens' future!
I multi-boot my bedroom pc, which is my primary pc when i'm home. very very happy with ubunutu. 6 seconds to boot. pc is ready 2 seconds after i log in. wireless connects very quickly and is solid. shuts down in 6 seconds flat every time. updates are non-intrusive. i dread booting into windows where it takes 30 seconds to boot, 60 seconds after login before i can click on anything, updates are a nitemare, pc response is slow, and shutdown is at least 30 seconds if there are no updates to install. the software on ubuntu blows away the options on windows, too. i'm typing this with ubuntu.
When someone asks me to help them get rid of their virus, instead of telling them I can't help them, I now rush over with an Ubuntu install CD. Months later, I ask them how they feel about the difference, they say, "the computer is a lot faster." When I ask them if they lost any abilities, they say, "no". In all honestly, most users can't really tell that much of a difference. Facebook and Youtube are Facebook and Youtube.
Performance is what people want now, even if they only intend to use their web browser. Their computer should boot and shutdown fast, and not put barriers between them and the apps they choose to use, web or desktop. Ubuntu is far superior in this respect. With Windows, you pay $100-200 more for an OS that is worth less than Ubuntu.
So, why do people pay for Windows? Because they don't have a choice. They go to Best Buy, and there is not one computer that offers a lower price if you don't want Windows!!! This is the real problem, protected by Microsoft's unethical behavior of taking advantage of Congress' lack of understanding by insisting that if a consumer doesn't pay for Windows, they plan to steal it. Why on earth would people steal an OS that is far inferior to the free and legal OS?!?
VOIP is a market in which microsoft does NOT have a stranglehold. They are competing with Google on this, and to completely fuck Skype up in the face of cross-platform Google talk would be a rather foolish idea.
I'd call a lot of Microsoft's ideas foolish, and I'd use their stock chart for the past decade to prove it. Like, for instance, requiring OS upgrades to upgrade IE... foolish. The OS dependency of.NET has hurt, not helped,.NET. The biggest weakness of SQL Server is its dependence on the OS, and part of the reason it can never truly compete with DB2 and Oracle. When the FTC quit trying to break up Microsoft, I told everyone to dump Microsoft stock because its OS division is its own worst enemy. Yes, it sustained its cash flow for years to come because of Windows. But, it did this at the long-term cost of innovation and competitiveness in nearly every other area of its business.
If it Skype becomes Windows only, it will be very foolish. But, that would hardly be a new line of thought for Microsoft.
I keep hearing the word license used more and more to copyrighted works. I remember it beginning with software, which was a word that we distinguished as applying to the executable binaries, not the source code. This distinction remained for a long time, justifying the contractual relationship with using software that does not apply to reading books.
Now, we hear licensing all the time to copyrighted works. This is creating an image that the owner of the copyright can unilaterally create a contractual relationship tied to what happens after the works are copied.
In the context of music, is it justifiable to refer to these fees as a form of licensing? Should we be pushing back on the use of the term "licensing"?
I can't tell you how happy I've been since I got rid of my $100/mo cable bill, saving me $6600 over 5.5 years! I've invested that money on better TVs/monitors, computers, and wireless keyboards. I've been a Netflix member since 1999, so already realized that nearly all the movies on the movie channels were things I watched on DVD already. Streaming and using the internet as my DVR ironically meant that I now had more content than I could ever watch, the opposite of what you fear.
The only downside has been sports, which have been slow to catch on. I do plan on paying for the NHL ticket next season, though, which will let me stream all games over the Internet.
The NFL wants you to pay for Dish TV before you can use the Internet. They just don't get it.
In a household with 5 TVs running, and IP replacing traditional cable TV, you'd want to support 5 1080p+ broadcasts with 7 channel audio at once just to support your TV needs. Throw in new HD web cams and video conferencing, which you may want to have 10+ going at a time in your house for various reasons, and I can imagine using it all.
In any case, I don't look at it that way. The way I see it, most of us don't have enough. I'd be afraid to stream more than one HD movie at a time in my household. So, the best benefit would be removing all of today's real limitations.
The question is whether or not the economies of scale would be worth it. At a minimum, it should eliminate the need for tiered pricing and eliminate all excuses to oppose net neutrality. What if we could offer this high speed to every citizen for only $99/mo?
How about upload limits? They are pretty severe today. This could permit every citizen to become a net broadcaster and host any web site or service they want, including hosting videos.
Actually, you can debate whether domain name registration is personal property, or property of ICANN. IIRC, when they extended renewals beyond 2 years, I remember something about them limiting them to 9 years instead of 10, because 10 could be interpreted as property. I don't know if that is a common law interpretation or what, or if that has been challenged since then. It is a vague memory and IANAL. But, I do remember that being the justification behind having 9 year renewals instead of 10.
Is anyone else concerned that homeland security arrested him? Weren't they created to fight terrorism in response to 9/11?!? And, what on earth does it have to do with "Immigration and Customs"? It sounds like the ESA went to an organization that they knew (1) had nothing important to do today, (2) would have the least capability to understand the issue involved and (3), would have a tendency to overblow the importance, and (4) be desperate to throw someone in jail.
Who created the laws of the universe? Forget about the universe! Who created the atom and got all that atomic power to hold together? We've seen what happens when you pop them.
It is also false because with most HTTPS connections, it is very easy via a proxy server to stage a man in the middle attack and you'll never know. The only way to prevent it is to use a real certificate instead of the anonymous one generated by your browser.
I removed the "open standard" part from the subject because of width limitations and then, like your thoughts, in this field pioneering implementations would likely be first.:)
How about a web based client interface for browsing encrypted content that is dispersed throughout the web to increased readership of closed circle content and a trust system for automatically sharing access to friends?
The core issue with this debate is we confuse science with history, particularly biological history. History is the real debate on how things came about. Science can really only define the current state of our physics laws, an understanding we continue to improve. It becomes murky when you use our current understanding of physics to try to understand history, which no one can prove or disprove with certainty once any "concrete" evidence is no longer available. In that realm, you run into a lot of theory where physical evidence only acts as debatable "clues". The further back in time we go, the more murky this becomes. Trying to apply the science lab rules for determining truth on the current state of physics to distant historical accounts is pointless, as current state is potentially provable, but history is not.
Using science to try to understand history tends to be based on the assumption the laws of physics today as we understand remained constant throughout history, which we cannot prove. We can prove, however, that our understanding of the current state of physics is not constant.:)
If you limited teaching of science without any reference to history, you'd have very little debate between creationism and Darwinism. The reason creationists feel like their children are being taught a biased view in schools is because their belief on history is being displaced by another belief that is built on a lot of assumption and theory. Both beliefs have archeological evidence and theory, and neither can be physically proved by current state science.
The model is "experimental", and that is the problem. I've been paying for WSJ content. I didn't pay for NYT content back when they charged. I don't know if I will ever pay for NYT content; but I can share the lessons of being a paying subscriber to WSJ Online in predicting issues the NYT is likely to have.
The issue I'm raising is all this experimenting puts off those of us who do pay. What if you subscribe to NYT in their new model, and you want to post a link to an article in your blog. Given that non-subscribers can view X number of articles (pretend X is 10) for free each month before they are required to pay, how do you know how your readers will feel about clicking the link when you don't have a clue how many will be locked out for not being a subscriber? I remember when NYT did charge, every link to it from/. came with a disclaimer.
I have been paying for Wall Street Journal Online for possibly as long as 10 years. Robert Murdoch, who purchased it a few years back, has been changing the pay model a lot to maximize revenues. I'm likely to unsubscribe over the next month or so for the first time since I first began using their online service instead of paper. Here are the changes that have made it worse for paying customers:
1> Added advertising for paid subscribers.
2> Confused what is free and what is paid for. This is a never ending moving target. It is very confusing when you try to share something with non-subscribers.
3> Huge price increases at renewal time that I have to renegotiate over the phone.
4> They throw their video content on the home page, which you go to about 20 times a day. On laptops I use all day in an office environment, I have volume muted so do not benefit from this. Yet, it freezes Firefox while it downloads the content for about 20-30 seconds every time I click on the home page. I've asked them to remove it, to no avail.
5> Announced that blackberry access will no longer be included with regular online access. Separate fee required. This, to me, is the straw that is breaking the camels back, and why I will unsubscribe as soon as this goes into effect.
It is sad to see the NYT follow the WSJ's lead in this. I'm willing to pay for content, but they really do need to find a model that works and stick with it instead of changing it every 3 months. They are pushing long-time paying customers like me away.
Perhaps the download target could be an option, defaulting to the user config. I personally would want any font I chose to add to become available system-wide. It would save me the effort of trying to propagate web fonts to the system so I could use them in other tools like GIMP.
The web isn't really font-agnostic. It hasn't been since styles were introduced. What it is is font-limited, because the content provider can specify the preferred fonts, but can't control the actual fonts used. To be sure, this doesn't remove control from the end-user. They will still probably be able to reject a new font. You can also create content the old way, either with no font specified, or with your preferred font list of popular fonts. This simply adds an option for content providers who want to use fonts that are not necessarily likely to be installed on the user's machine, but are preferable to using images. Text in images is not Ctrl-F searchable and can consume a lot of bandwidth relative to text.
Control over fonts has always been a limit with the web design and I believe this could help overcome it, creating an important improvement for the web. I'm interested in understanding how web browsers will handle font updates across operating systems, whether or not fonts will be added system wide or just for the browser, and perhaps just for the user.
I'd love to use cutting edge fonts like urban fonts (http://www.urbanfonts.com) without having to turn them into GIFs before including in web content.
Slashdot Mirror
We've had the ability to encrypt email for years, and we battled for PGP, yet no one uses it. The question is how do you get people to encrypt email by default, particularly when it requires participation by both sides. Add this challenge to IM.
If so, then yes, you'll have lots of developers.
Then there were years of warnings where Congress was informed annually that there was a huge capital exodus from US markets in all types of securities EXCEPT debt securities since 2001. This capital flight in our stock markets was because our production markets became comparatively uncompetitive, also in part due to a tax regime that continued to encourage companies to move operations overseas.
Yet, does Congress accept blame for their actions leading up to the global economic crisis and continuing today as we have very high unemployment and anemic growth? Do they pass the simple laws needed to fix this, which do not require any spending, but merely correcting the economic unintended consequences of a tax policy that is clearly broken in a new technologically based dynamic global playing field?
No! Instead, they try to point the finger at anyone else they can so that no one notices that they are the cause of our problems. Worse yet, they avoid the very simple change needed to fix things because if they passed these laws, people might ask the question, "why did it take so long to realize these fixes were needed?" Their fear of being identified as the cause is the reason they continue to keep the status quo path that prevents us from enjoying the economic prosperity we built our country on.
I am angry at Congress, because they care more about popularity and being elected than actually doing what is needed to put our country on a solid path of economic growth. They refuse to admit to and repent for their past mistakes, and continue to blame others because they are more about re-election than our childrens' future!
VGhhdCBpcyBhbGwgSSBoYXZlIHRvIHNheS4=
When someone asks me to help them get rid of their virus, instead of telling them I can't help them, I now rush over with an Ubuntu install CD. Months later, I ask them how they feel about the difference, they say, "the computer is a lot faster." When I ask them if they lost any abilities, they say, "no". In all honestly, most users can't really tell that much of a difference. Facebook and Youtube are Facebook and Youtube.
Performance is what people want now, even if they only intend to use their web browser. Their computer should boot and shutdown fast, and not put barriers between them and the apps they choose to use, web or desktop. Ubuntu is far superior in this respect. With Windows, you pay $100-200 more for an OS that is worth less than Ubuntu.
So, why do people pay for Windows? Because they don't have a choice. They go to Best Buy, and there is not one computer that offers a lower price if you don't want Windows!!! This is the real problem, protected by Microsoft's unethical behavior of taking advantage of Congress' lack of understanding by insisting that if a consumer doesn't pay for Windows, they plan to steal it. Why on earth would people steal an OS that is far inferior to the free and legal OS?!?
VOIP is a market in which microsoft does NOT have a stranglehold. They are competing with Google on this, and to completely fuck Skype up in the face of cross-platform Google talk would be a rather foolish idea.
I'd call a lot of Microsoft's ideas foolish, and I'd use their stock chart for the past decade to prove it. Like, for instance, requiring OS upgrades to upgrade IE... foolish. The OS dependency of .NET has hurt, not helped, .NET. The biggest weakness of SQL Server is its dependence on the OS, and part of the reason it can never truly compete with DB2 and Oracle. When the FTC quit trying to break up Microsoft, I told everyone to dump Microsoft stock because its OS division is its own worst enemy. Yes, it sustained its cash flow for years to come because of Windows. But, it did this at the long-term cost of innovation and competitiveness in nearly every other area of its business.
If it Skype becomes Windows only, it will be very foolish. But, that would hardly be a new line of thought for Microsoft.
I keep hearing the word license used more and more to copyrighted works. I remember it beginning with software, which was a word that we distinguished as applying to the executable binaries, not the source code. This distinction remained for a long time, justifying the contractual relationship with using software that does not apply to reading books. Now, we hear licensing all the time to copyrighted works. This is creating an image that the owner of the copyright can unilaterally create a contractual relationship tied to what happens after the works are copied. In the context of music, is it justifiable to refer to these fees as a form of licensing? Should we be pushing back on the use of the term "licensing"?
I can't tell you how happy I've been since I got rid of my $100/mo cable bill, saving me $6600 over 5.5 years! I've invested that money on better TVs/monitors, computers, and wireless keyboards. I've been a Netflix member since 1999, so already realized that nearly all the movies on the movie channels were things I watched on DVD already. Streaming and using the internet as my DVR ironically meant that I now had more content than I could ever watch, the opposite of what you fear.
The only downside has been sports, which have been slow to catch on. I do plan on paying for the NHL ticket next season, though, which will let me stream all games over the Internet.
The NFL wants you to pay for Dish TV before you can use the Internet. They just don't get it.
Erik
In a household with 5 TVs running, and IP replacing traditional cable TV, you'd want to support 5 1080p+ broadcasts with 7 channel audio at once just to support your TV needs. Throw in new HD web cams and video conferencing, which you may want to have 10+ going at a time in your house for various reasons, and I can imagine using it all. In any case, I don't look at it that way. The way I see it, most of us don't have enough. I'd be afraid to stream more than one HD movie at a time in my household. So, the best benefit would be removing all of today's real limitations. The question is whether or not the economies of scale would be worth it. At a minimum, it should eliminate the need for tiered pricing and eliminate all excuses to oppose net neutrality. What if we could offer this high speed to every citizen for only $99/mo? How about upload limits? They are pretty severe today. This could permit every citizen to become a net broadcaster and host any web site or service they want, including hosting videos.
Actually, you can debate whether domain name registration is personal property, or property of ICANN. IIRC, when they extended renewals beyond 2 years, I remember something about them limiting them to 9 years instead of 10, because 10 could be interpreted as property. I don't know if that is a common law interpretation or what, or if that has been challenged since then. It is a vague memory and IANAL. But, I do remember that being the justification behind having 9 year renewals instead of 10.
how many fingers am I holding up?
Is anyone else concerned that homeland security arrested him? Weren't they created to fight terrorism in response to 9/11?!? And, what on earth does it have to do with "Immigration and Customs"? It sounds like the ESA went to an organization that they knew (1) had nothing important to do today, (2) would have the least capability to understand the issue involved and (3), would have a tendency to overblow the importance, and (4) be desperate to throw someone in jail.
LOL, just read it when I switched back to finish TFA. Should of searched TFA first before posting. SIGH.
That would be an essential requirement to replace plastic.
Who created the laws of the universe? Forget about the universe! Who created the atom and got all that atomic power to hold together? We've seen what happens when you pop them.
It is also false because with most HTTPS connections, it is very easy via a proxy server to stage a man in the middle attack and you'll never know. The only way to prevent it is to use a real certificate instead of the anonymous one generated by your browser.
I removed the "open standard" part from the subject because of width limitations and then, like your thoughts, in this field pioneering implementations would likely be first. :)
How about a web based client interface for browsing encrypted content that is dispersed throughout the web to increased readership of closed circle content and a trust system for automatically sharing access to friends?
The core issue with this debate is we confuse science with history, particularly biological history. History is the real debate on how things came about. Science can really only define the current state of our physics laws, an understanding we continue to improve. It becomes murky when you use our current understanding of physics to try to understand history, which no one can prove or disprove with certainty once any "concrete" evidence is no longer available. In that realm, you run into a lot of theory where physical evidence only acts as debatable "clues". The further back in time we go, the more murky this becomes. Trying to apply the science lab rules for determining truth on the current state of physics to distant historical accounts is pointless, as current state is potentially provable, but history is not.
:)
Using science to try to understand history tends to be based on the assumption the laws of physics today as we understand remained constant throughout history, which we cannot prove. We can prove, however, that our understanding of the current state of physics is not constant.
If you limited teaching of science without any reference to history, you'd have very little debate between creationism and Darwinism. The reason creationists feel like their children are being taught a biased view in schools is because their belief on history is being displaced by another belief that is built on a lot of assumption and theory. Both beliefs have archeological evidence and theory, and neither can be physically proved by current state science.
To be honest, they are "things", not people. Should we really consider loving "things"?
The model is "experimental", and that is the problem. I've been paying for WSJ content. I didn't pay for NYT content back when they charged. I don't know if I will ever pay for NYT content; but I can share the lessons of being a paying subscriber to WSJ Online in predicting issues the NYT is likely to have.
/. came with a disclaimer.
The issue I'm raising is all this experimenting puts off those of us who do pay. What if you subscribe to NYT in their new model, and you want to post a link to an article in your blog. Given that non-subscribers can view X number of articles (pretend X is 10) for free each month before they are required to pay, how do you know how your readers will feel about clicking the link when you don't have a clue how many will be locked out for not being a subscriber? I remember when NYT did charge, every link to it from
I have been paying for Wall Street Journal Online for possibly as long as 10 years. Robert Murdoch, who purchased it a few years back, has been changing the pay model a lot to maximize revenues. I'm likely to unsubscribe over the next month or so for the first time since I first began using their online service instead of paper. Here are the changes that have made it worse for paying customers:
1> Added advertising for paid subscribers. 2> Confused what is free and what is paid for. This is a never ending moving target. It is very confusing when you try to share something with non-subscribers. 3> Huge price increases at renewal time that I have to renegotiate over the phone. 4> They throw their video content on the home page, which you go to about 20 times a day. On laptops I use all day in an office environment, I have volume muted so do not benefit from this. Yet, it freezes Firefox while it downloads the content for about 20-30 seconds every time I click on the home page. I've asked them to remove it, to no avail. 5> Announced that blackberry access will no longer be included with regular online access. Separate fee required. This, to me, is the straw that is breaking the camels back, and why I will unsubscribe as soon as this goes into effect.
It is sad to see the NYT follow the WSJ's lead in this. I'm willing to pay for content, but they really do need to find a model that works and stick with it instead of changing it every 3 months. They are pushing long-time paying customers like me away.
Erik
Perhaps the download target could be an option, defaulting to the user config. I personally would want any font I chose to add to become available system-wide. It would save me the effort of trying to propagate web fonts to the system so I could use them in other tools like GIMP.
The web isn't really font-agnostic. It hasn't been since styles were introduced. What it is is font-limited, because the content provider can specify the preferred fonts, but can't control the actual fonts used. To be sure, this doesn't remove control from the end-user. They will still probably be able to reject a new font. You can also create content the old way, either with no font specified, or with your preferred font list of popular fonts. This simply adds an option for content providers who want to use fonts that are not necessarily likely to be installed on the user's machine, but are preferable to using images. Text in images is not Ctrl-F searchable and can consume a lot of bandwidth relative to text.
Control over fonts has always been a limit with the web design and I believe this could help overcome it, creating an important improvement for the web. I'm interested in understanding how web browsers will handle font updates across operating systems, whether or not fonts will be added system wide or just for the browser, and perhaps just for the user. I'd love to use cutting edge fonts like urban fonts (http://www.urbanfonts.com) without having to turn them into GIFs before including in web content.