End-to-End is network-layer services, not applications. What do you mean by "Push the intelligence to the edges of the network"? Intermediary vendors will argue that that's precisely what they're doing.
Err.. please discriminate betweeen caching and application-level gateways aka intermediaries.
There's a lot of commercial interest right now in making intermediaries "smarter" so that they can process messages through them.
Deployment of these devices cannot be stopped technically, and it's doubtful that they'll be stopped legally. What can be done is the establishment of a framework that at least makes the server and/or client aware of the modification to a message, and hopefully give them some degree of control over it.
if the whole cookie-sensitive pricing thing is
just an attempt by these sites to 'train' users to buy first, ask questions later. It's well known that they all hate the 'lost shopping cart' effect, and need to drive that figure down for Wall Street.
I've notice the same thing when buying airline tickets from a variety of places, FWIW.
I've been waiting for this for a long time now; it's going to change the Internet in Australia drastically. Telstra have been holding it back for too long.
I'd rather use an AirPort - I have one at work, one at home, they work like a dream, and my laptop (linux of couse) picks up the network with absolutely no worries. This article doesn't say anything about encryption, and the prices look about the same. Not such a good deal... especially if you can't configure *their* base station with a Linux box. I've heard rumours that you can configure the AirPort base station through SNMP... anyone have info?
I'm wondering how useful this would be. The main benefit of having it in this format is that you can put it in your wallet, right? Hopefully, you wouldn't need it *that* often, but you would need it at a moment's notice, so you'd probably have it in there for a while (possibly alongside other items with similar attributes, natch).
So, if this is the case, how long would it hold up? It is still a CD, after all; would it need similar handling as a normal CD? How likely is it that when you actually need it, it will still be useable?
Despite these reservations... where can I actually get one? *grin*
M-POST is not a *new* method; it's proposed in the HTT P Extension Framework, which is only an I-D now, not a standard (so it shouldn't technically be referred to here, but this is the real world). This draft is about to be reviewed by the IESG AFAIK, and is written by Frystyk Nielsen, so it's a pretty fair guess that it'll be a standard soon enough.
I agree that it's a shame that HTTP is used in this way, but it speaks more about the fallacies and shortcomings of people's current security models than it does about anything else. This is actually pretty tame.
This worries me: "This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative works is not granted." Whats the point of a RFC without this? I dont suppose theres much chance of getting em to change their minds
This is standard; I-D (and RFC) authors have the option to allow or not allow derivative works. Not allowing derivative works is fairly common, especially if describing a proprietarily-developed yet openly used protocol, or to establish a standard that shouldn't be changed except in approved ways; after all, that's the point of a standard.
I'm a bit concerned about performance, and also I've had problems in the past with stream i/o over http, especially when a poxy proxy gets in the way.
Intelligent use of HTTP/1.1 will fix this; proxies are now just starting to support this more fully, including chunked encoding.
I use a NCD 16 two-color X-terminal that's about 10 yrs old for 80% of my work (besides reading e-mail and some Web, basically). It in turn runs ctwm, xterm, xclock, xterm, xterm and xterm.
You're absolutely right - for actual work, very little is needed if you've got half a brain and a well-identified task.
Of course, that cuts out large swaths of the corporate world...
...With[sic] sounds almost like mainframes all over!
You're not rebuking the idea of centralised computing, you're playing on people's prejudices against 20-year old dumb terminals that were hard to use.
In huge centralized system the effects of such attacks are greatly magnified because one single line of code can suddenly open millions of mailboxes.
And one line of bad code can't be much more of a risk on millions of PCs running the same (browser, e-mail, etc)? At least on a centralised server, it can be fixed for good, by qualified people.
You invariably end up with no rights what so ever, and you are likely not even to know it because you would have to be a computer scientist and a lawyer at the same time.
What exactly does this have to do with the matter at hand? How will putting a PC that needs to be configured, maintained and supported on every desktop help here?
Centrally managed computing (like Sun may offer) is a good answer for companies that need to manage hundreds or thousands of desktops for clueless users in a sane manner. Noone is shoving anything down your throat. Yes, believe it or not, the big, nasty corporations aren't, in this case, trying to rob you blind, curtail your precious rights, or anything else. They just don't care.
The key different between HotMail and StarOffice (as a service) is that StarOffice will run INSIDE the company, and therefore be the responsibility of "friendlies", NOT an external service provider.
Of course, they'll probably make it a net-available services as well, but so what? Big corporations *gasp* are still responsible for writing a lot of the software out there.
I don't know exactly what the author is trying to do here; it seems like they've strung together a list of 'hot-button' issues to make some kind of statement, one that we've heard many times before. It doesn't add anything really useful.
The IIA represents ISPs in Australia, and frankly, it has little to do with 'big corporations' (AFAIK, Telstra isn't involved, for instance).
The 'Australian People' have spoken, in effect, through their govt, which effected legislation that forces ISPs to filter content. This is the ISPs' response; it is probably the most decent one they can make, under the circumstances. Trust me, they're not happy about it at all.
Read up a little more closely before you assume this stuff.
The IIA has done something very interesting. The intent of the legislation was to put responsibility for filtering at the ISP level, making life difficult for them and easy for everyone else. This made it especially hard for small ISPs, while relatively easy for Telstra (which the govt owns a stake in, hmmm).
With this move, the IIA has squarely put the responsibility on the end users, who will either a) ignore it b) get up in arms about the fees, inconvenience, etc.
It's a brilliant way to put the pressure on the government by keeping it in the minds (and wallets) of the average AU consumer.
This is a well-understood phenomenon - a Zipf curve ( a graph which is a straight line when plotted on a double-log scale).
What it means is that there are a very small number of sites that get a very large amount of attention/hits/bandwidth, a medium number getting a medium amount, and a very large number getting a very small amount.
Zipf's law is seen in a number of facets of Web traffic, both within a site and across the Web (such as site popularity). When you take into account the nature of Zipf curves, it's not surprising that they're seeing more traffic on the high end; in the scale of things, this is just a blip.
If nothing else, this has been a learning experience for a lot of people. And a pretty profitable one for E*Trade too I bet.
Oh, christ, what do you expect? This is the stock market. Stockbrokers are scum. Period. They make a lot of money on people's greed. The stock market is a magnet because people have heard they can get rich quick with it. Sound familiar?
Of course e*trade is making a lot of money here; you expect them to have pure motives? If you want a socially responsible means of raising capital, don't go to Wall Street.
Check out: http://www.news.com/News/Item/Textonly/0,25,3987 7,00.html?pfv That was quick.
My own.02 (I tech for a Large Investing Firm) - this is very, very standard stuff. It could have been avoided, but what do you expect when the press is full of stories of people getting rich?
Slashdot Mirror
End-to-End is network-layer services, not applications. What do you mean by "Push the intelligence to the edges of the network"? Intermediary vendors will argue that that's precisely what they're doing.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
Err.. please discriminate betweeen caching and application-level gateways aka intermediaries.
There's a lot of commercial interest right now in making intermediaries "smarter" so that they can process messages through them.
Deployment of these devices cannot be stopped technically, and it's doubtful that they'll be stopped legally. What can be done is the establishment of a framework that at least makes the server and/or client aware of the modification to a message, and hopefully give them some degree of control over it.
EOM
if the whole cookie-sensitive pricing thing is
just an attempt by these sites to 'train' users to buy first, ask questions later. It's well known that they all hate the 'lost shopping cart' effect, and need to drive that figure down for Wall Street.
I've notice the same thing when buying airline tickets from a variety of places, FWIW.
lsof -i
I've been waiting for this for a long time now; it's going to change the Internet in Australia drastically. Telstra have been holding it back for too long.
I'd rather use an AirPort - I have one at work, one at home, they work like a dream, and my laptop (linux of couse) picks up the network with absolutely no worries. This article doesn't say anything about encryption, and the prices look about the same. Not such a good deal... especially if you can't configure *their* base station with a Linux box. I've heard rumours that you can configure the AirPort base station through SNMP... anyone have info?
I'm wondering how useful this would be. The main benefit of having it in this format is that you can put it in your wallet, right? Hopefully, you wouldn't need it *that* often, but you would need it at a moment's notice, so you'd probably have it in there for a while (possibly alongside other items with similar attributes, natch).
So, if this is the case, how long would it hold up? It is still a CD, after all; would it need similar handling as a normal CD? How likely is it that when you actually need it, it will still be useable?
Despite these reservations... where can I actually get one? *grin*
This is completely normal - read http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/ietf-http-ext/dra ft-frystyk-http-extensions-03
I agree that it's a shame that HTTP is used in this way, but it speaks more about the fallacies and shortcomings of people's current security models than it does about anything else. This is actually pretty tame.
This is standard; I-D (and RFC) authors have the option to allow or not allow derivative works. Not allowing derivative works is fairly common, especially if describing a proprietarily-developed yet openly used protocol, or to establish a standard that shouldn't be changed except in approved ways; after all, that's the point of a standard.
I'm a bit concerned about performance, and also I've had problems in the past with stream i/o over http, especially when a poxy proxy gets in the way.
Intelligent use of HTTP/1.1 will fix this; proxies are now just starting to support this more fully, including chunked encoding.
I use a NCD 16 two-color X-terminal that's about 10 yrs old for 80% of my work (besides reading e-mail and some Web, basically). It in turn runs ctwm, xterm, xclock, xterm, xterm and xterm.
You're absolutely right - for actual work, very little is needed if you've got half a brain and a well-identified task.
Of course, that cuts out large swaths of the corporate world...
You're not rebuking the idea of centralised computing, you're playing on people's prejudices against 20-year old dumb terminals that were hard to use.
In huge centralized system the effects of such attacks are greatly magnified because one single line of code can suddenly open millions of mailboxes.
And one line of bad code can't be much more of a risk on millions of PCs running the same (browser, e-mail, etc)? At least on a centralised server, it can be fixed for good, by qualified people.
You invariably end up with no rights what so ever, and you are likely not even to know it because you would have to be a computer scientist and a lawyer at the same time.
What exactly does this have to do with the matter at hand? How will putting a PC that needs to be configured, maintained and supported on every desktop help here?
Centrally managed computing (like Sun may offer) is a good answer for companies that need to manage hundreds or thousands of desktops for clueless users in a sane manner. Noone is shoving anything down your throat. Yes, believe it or not, the big, nasty corporations aren't, in this case, trying to rob you blind, curtail your precious rights, or anything else. They just don't care.
The key different between HotMail and StarOffice (as a service) is that StarOffice will run INSIDE the company, and therefore be the responsibility of "friendlies", NOT an external service provider.
Of course, they'll probably make it a net-available services as well, but so what? Big corporations *gasp* are still responsible for writing a lot of the software out there.
I don't know exactly what the author is trying to do here; it seems like they've strung together a list of 'hot-button' issues to make some kind of statement, one that we've heard many times before. It doesn't add anything really useful.
Ah, wait, there does seem to be someone from Telstra in there.. I think 'subvert from within' is probably appropriate...
The IIA represents ISPs in Australia, and frankly, it has little to do with 'big corporations' (AFAIK, Telstra isn't involved, for instance).
The 'Australian People' have spoken, in effect, through their govt, which effected legislation that forces ISPs to filter content. This is the ISPs' response; it is probably the most decent one they can make, under the circumstances. Trust me, they're not happy about it at all.
Read up a little more closely before you assume this stuff.
The IIA has done something very interesting. The intent of the legislation was to put responsibility for filtering at the ISP level, making life difficult for them and easy for everyone else. This made it especially hard for small ISPs, while relatively easy for Telstra (which the govt owns a stake in, hmmm).
With this move, the IIA has squarely put the responsibility on the end users, who will either a) ignore it b) get up in arms about the fees, inconvenience, etc.
It's a brilliant way to put the pressure on the government by keeping it in the minds (and wallets) of the average AU consumer.
What it means is that there are a very small number of sites that get a very large amount of attention/hits/bandwidth, a medium number getting a medium amount, and a very large number getting a very small amount.
Zipf's law is seen in a number of facets of Web traffic, both within a site and across the Web (such as site popularity). When you take into account the nature of Zipf curves, it's not surprising that they're seeing more traffic on the high end; in the scale of things, this is just a blip.
Jakob Neilson has a good intro to zipf's law in regard to Web traffic: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/zipf.html
Oh, christ, what do you expect? This is the stock market. Stockbrokers are scum. Period. They make a lot of money on people's greed. The stock market is a magnet because people have heard they can get rich quick with it. Sound familiar?
Of course e*trade is making a lot of money here; you expect them to have pure motives? If you want a socially responsible means of raising capital, don't go to Wall Street.
Check out:7 7,00.html?pfv
.02 (I tech for a Large Investing Firm) - this is very, very standard stuff. It could have been avoided, but what do you expect when the press is full of stories of people getting rich?
http://www.news.com/News/Item/Textonly/0,25,398
That was quick.
My own