The point was that with telephone companies, consumer protection did not lag too much. Also, the technical obstacles were much lower.
Can you imagine facebook or twitter being forced to open up their API's so they can interoperate with other similar companies? I think they are too big already for that to happen. They have already acquired too much lobbying power. And they will use arguments of the kind "our API's are much too complicted to open up". Just like microsoft did with IE, saying that they could not isolate the browser from the operating system. Yes, IE is losing ground, but that's because they could not lock in their users completely.
Capitalism sucks because consumer protection sucks. Why is facebook worth so much? Because they've locked in all their users. Same with linkedin and twitter.
Imagine a telecom company locking in their users, so users would not be able to call eachother on different networks, or switch between networks. Now that would be an outrage.
Consider also a telecom company that sniffs the calls of its users and sells this information to other companies. That would be an even bigger outrage.
Why does it still work differently with social networks? Well, because consumer protection is too many steps behind. And once it is far behind and interests have been established, it is very difficult to fix the situation.
Or better, place an order for an "erectile enhancement kit" you read about in your email, with your own credit card number. Use the credit card company's address as the shipping address. Then call the credit card company and declare that an unauthorized payment has been made, and make them roll back the transaction.
The best way to fight spam is still to "steal back" the time the spammer has stolen from you. Just order a product with a wrong credit card number. Let the spammer take some time figuring it out. Then contact him, ask him some questions, etc... keep him on hold for some time. If everybody did that, then there would be no spamming at all.
Why not take it a level further and allow commenting not just on news stories, but on any desired url?
A comment-system could even be integrated in the browser. Imagine just opening a webpage, clicking the "comments" button, and seeing a bunch of moderated comments (perhaps even in slashdot style). Now that would be awesome!
I'm more afraid of the filter bubbles. Information on the web is increasingly filtered for you, without you knowing it, or being able to control it. See this TED talk:
Fortunately, the good engineers that develop Internet Protocols were aware of the potentially devastating consequences that static IP addresses for each device would have on anonymity online and, as a result, privacy. The Internet Protocol next generation (IPng) working group crafted a solution that involved creating;
pseudorandom interface identifiers and temporary addresses using an algorithm The temporary address would not derive from a completely random generation process, which might result in two computers generating the same number, but instead would produce a temporary pseudo-random sequence dependent on both the globally unique serial number and a random component. The number would be globally unique because it would derive from the interface identifier and from the history of previously generated addresses, but would be difficult for an external node to reverse engineer to determine the source computer. [3]
In layman’s terms, this means that the engineers responsible for IPv6 were mindful of the surveillance capacities of the new Internet Protocol, and built privacy into a system that would otherwise lend itself to surveillance and authoritarian tendencies. The catch, however, is that is requires the parties responsible for assigning IP addresses to participate in the pseudo-anonymization process itself: it’s possible for ISPs to forcibly assign particular address to each and every device on their network.
Some time ago I read a blog article somewhere stating that the current design of the internet is fundamentally flawed. The reason is exactly like you mention here, i.e., the standard is getting too complicated for any browser vendor to follow precisely, resulting in ever-increasing cross-browser headaches for web-developers.
What we need, and this was mentioned in that blog, is a much lower-level intermediate code which runs on any browser. Even lower-level than Java (i.e., without its own garbage collector). Think google native-client, but platform-independent, or something based on virtual-machine technology.
Since intermediate code usually has a small number of instructions only (on the order of 50-100), it is much easier to get consistent across browsers (the instructions themselves also leave little room for ambiguity, in contrast to the W3C specs which require careful study). Combine this with OpenGL rendering, and you're halfway in implementing a more feasible architecture.
Besides rendering you'll need scripting and layout. But these two aspects you can code in the intermediate code, completely separated from the rest of the browser implementation. And the advantage is then that any webdeveloper can choose his/her own favorite scripting language and/or layout algorithms, and it will automatically work across all browsers implementing the intermediate code layer. (Imagine the joy of just referencing "python.so" and "webkit_rendering.so" from within your HTML code)
I definitely think this is the way to go. But unfortunately, I do not have the coding/architecting skills to contribute to this, otherwise I would.
PS: I cannot recall where I have read this blog. Perhaps somebody who recognizes this could post me a link?
Yes, browsers are very complicated. And so is programming for them, especially considering the bewildering number of browsers your code has to work for.
Now, if only browsers were more like virtual machines (virtualbox, vmware, etc.), then life of a webdeveloper would be much simpler.
Here's why: - A webdeveloper could choose his own scripting language (of course, I assume here that the webdeveloper can simply pick a standard open-source scripting language; he does not need to build one himself, but in theory he could of course) - A webdeveloper could choose his own layout engine (and DOM model) - A webdeveloper could choose his own networking abstractions - etc. etc.
And there would be much opportunity for open-source projects to provide all these separate modules.
Did you ever wonder why there are barely web-based equivalents to open-source projects such as GIMP or OpenOffice? That's because web-programming is so darn difficult, while it could be so simple, and so much like native development.
Now, if you're worried about virtual machines being slow or being able to interpret only one kind of machine instructions, then think again. Virtual machine technology has advanced enormously the last decade. And there is no need to target a specific family of processors. Instead of targeting x86 instructions or ARM instructions, an intermediate code could be used, and this code can be recompiled (within the browser, or on the server) for a specific machine. Of course, caching methods should be used to avoid unnecessary downloading of binary objects.
I think the above scenario would be a web-developer's dream. And a whole new open-source eco-system could arise from it.
why the fuck anyone cares about a number this long
Because... if we have more binary digits of Pi, we can search for subsequences of digits representing mp3 songs. Using that, we can show that RIAA is wrong, because as a matter of fact, you can't copyright mathematics.
Slashdot Mirror
The point was that with telephone companies, consumer protection did not lag too much. Also, the technical obstacles were much lower.
Can you imagine facebook or twitter being forced to open up their API's so they can interoperate with other similar companies? I think they are too big already for that to happen. They have already acquired too much lobbying power. And they will use arguments of the kind "our API's are much too complicted to open up". Just like microsoft did with IE, saying that they could not isolate the browser from the operating system. Yes, IE is losing ground, but that's because they could not lock in their users completely.
Capitalism sucks because consumer protection sucks. Why is facebook worth so much? Because they've locked in all their users. Same with linkedin and twitter.
Imagine a telecom company locking in their users, so users would not be able to call eachother on different networks, or switch between networks. Now that would be an outrage.
Consider also a telecom company that sniffs the calls of its users and sells this information to other companies. That would be an even bigger outrage.
Why does it still work differently with social networks? Well, because consumer protection is too many steps behind. And once it is far behind and interests have been established, it is very difficult to fix the situation.
It is a way to fight spam. I didn't say it was legal.
(Please don't do everything people tell you to do on the internet.)
Just wait until all other computer manufactures start thinking the way Apple does. Then you'll know what everybody is talking about.
Or better, place an order for an "erectile enhancement kit" you read about in your email, with your own credit card number. Use the credit card company's address as the shipping address. Then call the credit card company and declare that an unauthorized payment has been made, and make them roll back the transaction.
The best way to fight spam is still to "steal back" the time the spammer has stolen from you. Just order a product with a wrong credit card number. Let the spammer take some time figuring it out. Then contact him, ask him some questions, etc... keep him on hold for some time. If everybody did that, then there would be no spamming at all.
That's fine, as long as you filter MY credit card number out of your random number generator, thank you very much.
As bitcoins are based on cryptographic technology, I wonder if quantum computing can render my bitcoins invalid?
This will become interesting when I can run webkit or gecko inside IE.
Imagine... no more lousy cross-browser headaches...
But, can you comment on the "green" part of the question? How will this affect our environment?
Further, I'm wondering whether our precious future energy and computing resources will all be exhausted by bitcoin mining.
So as I understand it, if bitcoin would take off, all of our precious computing resources will be spent on generating (mining) bitcoins?
Wow, that is a good prospect!
They should call it DPV, or "deep packet voyeurism".
Why not take it a level further and allow commenting not just on news stories, but on any desired url?
A comment-system could even be integrated in the browser. Imagine just opening a webpage, clicking the "comments" button, and seeing a bunch of moderated comments (perhaps even in slashdot style). Now that would be awesome!
I'm more afraid of the filter bubbles. Information on the web is increasingly filtered for you, without you knowing it, or being able to control it.
See this TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html
I just found an interesting blog post on this topic: http://www.christopher-parsons.com/blog/technology/ipv6-and-the-future-of-privacy/
To get you interested here's a snippet:
Fortunately, the good engineers that develop Internet Protocols were aware of the potentially devastating consequences that static IP addresses for each device would have on anonymity online and, as a result, privacy. The Internet Protocol next generation (IPng) working group crafted a solution that involved creating;
pseudorandom interface identifiers and temporary addresses using an algorithm The temporary address would not derive from a completely random generation process, which might result in two computers generating the same number, but instead would produce a temporary pseudo-random sequence dependent on both the globally unique serial number and a random component. The number would be globally unique because it would derive from the interface identifier and from the history of previously generated addresses, but would be difficult for an external node to reverse engineer to determine the source computer. [3]
In layman’s terms, this means that the engineers responsible for IPv6 were mindful of the surveillance capacities of the new Internet Protocol, and built privacy into a system that would otherwise lend itself to surveillance and authoritarian tendencies. The catch, however, is that is requires the parties responsible for assigning IP addresses to participate in the pseudo-anonymization process itself: it’s possible for ISPs to forcibly assign particular address to each and every device on their network.
I'm even wondering if this thing runs faster than my cellphone...
I would be more impressed if he built a 6502 processor with DIY chemical processing.
did they get a hold on Google's secret search formulas?
Wondering about the "instabilities" caused by latency...
Some time ago I read a blog article somewhere stating that the current design of the internet is fundamentally flawed. The reason is exactly like you mention here, i.e., the standard is getting too complicated for any browser vendor to follow precisely, resulting in ever-increasing cross-browser headaches for web-developers.
What we need, and this was mentioned in that blog, is a much lower-level intermediate code which runs on any browser. Even lower-level than Java (i.e., without its own garbage collector). Think google native-client, but platform-independent, or something based on virtual-machine technology.
Since intermediate code usually has a small number of instructions only (on the order of 50-100), it is much easier to get consistent across browsers (the instructions themselves also leave little room for ambiguity, in contrast to the W3C specs which require careful study). Combine this with OpenGL rendering, and you're halfway in implementing a more feasible architecture.
Besides rendering you'll need scripting and layout. But these two aspects you can code in the intermediate code, completely separated from the rest of the browser implementation. And the advantage is then that any webdeveloper can choose his/her own favorite scripting language and/or layout algorithms, and it will automatically work across all browsers implementing the intermediate code layer. (Imagine the joy of just referencing "python.so" and "webkit_rendering.so" from within your HTML code)
I definitely think this is the way to go. But unfortunately, I do not have the coding/architecting skills to contribute to this, otherwise I would.
PS: I cannot recall where I have read this blog. Perhaps somebody who recognizes this could post me a link?
Okay so take it a step further...
The question now becomes: why can't I run mozilla's DOM and layout engine inside IE, Opera, or Chrome or any other browser?
So your html could start like: /> ... etc ...
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META browser="my_browser.so"
Where "my_browser.so" is a platform-independent shared object file which you may have compiled yourself (from Mozilla's code).
See the advantage? Your javascript, DOM manipulation, css layout, etcetera will work on ANY browser. No more cross-browser misery!
and I still cannot run a mozilla javascript environment inside IE, Opera, or Chrome.
You think I'm joking but I'm plain serious. Why are we so dependent on each particular javascript implementation?
I think they use RIAA-style reasoning here. And why not?
Yes, browsers are very complicated. And so is programming for them, especially considering the bewildering number of browsers your code has to work for.
Now, if only browsers were more like virtual machines (virtualbox, vmware, etc.), then life of a webdeveloper would be much simpler.
Here's why:
- A webdeveloper could choose his own scripting language (of course, I assume here that the webdeveloper can simply pick a standard open-source scripting language; he does not need to build one himself, but in theory he could of course)
- A webdeveloper could choose his own layout engine (and DOM model)
- A webdeveloper could choose his own networking abstractions
- etc. etc.
And there would be much opportunity for open-source projects to provide all these separate modules.
Did you ever wonder why there are barely web-based equivalents to open-source projects such as GIMP or OpenOffice? That's because web-programming is so darn difficult, while it could be so simple, and so much like native development.
Now, if you're worried about virtual machines being slow or being able to interpret only one kind of machine instructions, then think again. Virtual machine technology has advanced enormously the last decade. And there is no need to target a specific family of processors. Instead of targeting x86 instructions or ARM instructions, an intermediate code could be used, and this code can be recompiled (within the browser, or on the server) for a specific machine. Of course, caching methods should be used to avoid unnecessary downloading of binary objects.
I think the above scenario would be a web-developer's dream. And a whole new open-source eco-system could arise from it.
Alex
why the fuck anyone cares about a number this long
Because... if we have more binary digits of Pi, we can search for subsequences of digits representing mp3 songs. Using that, we can show that RIAA is wrong, because as a matter of fact, you can't copyright mathematics.