Because it is tied to the checking system, where checks were routinely flown across the country from bank to bank before they could be settled? (Even after we had electronic systems that should make this unnecessary?)
I see the context-switch as one between text and graphics.
If I'm working on the command line, then most times I have no need to have X11 running. I'm working exclusively with text.
I can boot to a command line and start working. No X11 is needed.
But when a need arises for graphics, e.g., to read a PDF composed of scanned images (not pure Postscript), then I have to "context-switch" to the X11 context.
I find that switching back and forth between these two contexts is not smooth and can easily lead to instability.
There is often a presumption, as in Plan9, that we will just switch once: to the graphical environment. And not return to the original console.
To me, neither an X11 terminal emulator nor the Plan9 environment is "the console". It's another layer of abstraction on top of the console.
That is a lot of overhead I do not need if I'm just working with text.
Sort of. But you have to keep X11 running on another vt. Stopping and restarting X many times in a session is a different story. At least for me.
And even in the case I keep X11 running on another vt, I've found that when using no wm, or a simple one like evilwm, switching back and forth from console (on one vt) to X11 (on another vt) many times does not work well. Eventually it fails.
This is on {Net,Free,Open}BSD.
I don't think that Plan9 has vt's as such. It's more like what the article envisions, with graphics capabilities seemingly woven into the terminal. But you're pretty much stuck in an X11 type environment. Plan9 experts correct me if I'm wrong.
I've always found this "context switch" from console to graphics is like a one-way street. You're not really expected to keep shutting down the graphics and going back to the console. At least I've never found anyone who does that.
I'm a NetBSD user that uses a tiling window manager (i3 - not ion3, it's different). ALT+1 and ALT+2 are where I keep my urxvts, ALT+3 my web browser, etc. The switch happens instantaneously.
Am I mistaken in my understanding of your issue, or is this helpful?
I imagine there might be other software/consulting companies in the business of stealthily collecting GB and PB's of personal data about consumers using wired and mobile networks who are thinking "Am I next?"
And I imagine some of their employees' minds might now be filling with thoughts about how to justify what they do, or to discount the need for anyone to make a big deal about what they do.
Will consumers care about what's booting when they turn on their phone, or what connections their phones are making? This will be very interesting.
As another commenter pointed out, Zuckerberg once called users "dumb fucks" for giving him their personal information. If he does not believe in privacy, as he now claims, why would he say that?
What if someone wants to tell a few friends about something but doesn't want to tell all the people working at Facebook, all its clients and potentially any other Facebook user?
I don't think any large, online social network used by lay-people can allow the kind of privacy control that you (and many others) want. The system just becomes too complex, and information leaks. I think that we will eventually adapt to this constraint.
For lay-people to know about and be comfortable using it, yes, I think it has to be a part of a large service.
There are ways to share secrets with a small number of friends online, but even among technical people, very few people do it. I can see that it's possible to create a service around, say, PGP encrypted messages, and I can even see abstracting out the technical details of it. (That is, not forcing the users to think about keys, instead saying "Tell us who you want to be allowed to know the secret" and making and distributing public-private keys on the fly.) But I think even that level of conceptual overhead is more than lay-people are willing to deal with.
You said: "I think it has to be a part of a large _service_."
My question was about the size of the _network_.
In any event, following your line of thought, do you think it's possible to have a many _small_, separate networks that were somehow part of a large service?
Regardless of your answer, does our solution have to be a "service"?
What if it is a "product" that creates small networks as overlays on a larger, existing network such as the one all your friends are connected to: the internet?
You said: "I can see that it's possible to create a service around, say, PGP..."
What if you could see that it's possible to create a service (or product, or both) around, say, a scheme that involved only a single shared password and a single shared encryption key? That is, each friend has to remember only two strings for each network to which she belongs, sort of like, say, a username and password.
What if you could see that such a scheme might not require logging on and logging out as frequently as a web-based service such as Facebook?
Would that change your thoughts at all?
You said, when referring to a PKI scheme like PGP: "But I think that [the] level of conceptual overhead is more than lay-people are willing to deal with."
I once thought the same thing about Amazon's S3 service. When I saw the Dropbox product, my thoughts changed.
Without reaching Facebook-caliber critical mass, what would such a service offer people to join? Just in case you wanted to tell them something? I mean, if you just want a small system for telling your friends things, use a mailing list.
Why is there a need for a new technological solution to this? If I want to tell a few people something secret, I'll send them an email, or, you know, talk to them. I don't see where the problem/opportunity is.
There may be one situation in which technology helps, which is when you want to discuss a secret while remaining anonymous. For that, we have 4chan, reddit, forums, IRC, etc.
With respect to "telling something to some of your friends", and attempting to do so "privately", there are certainly ways to do this without using Facebook.
However, that was only a specific example I chose, in line with veb's example of telling people you rub lettuce on your face, to use to illustrate to scott a point about whether only large networks could be useful in order to stay in touch with a small number of people, i.e., your friends. In theory, I could use any online activity or any service/protocol as an example to illustrate what the "solution" (a small private network) aims to achieve.
Talking (VOIP e.g. SIP), smtp (email), IRC and http (web forums), to use your examples, are examples of services/protocols that can be run over a network. Of course it is not an exhaustive list.
You could run them over the open internet, i.e. a very large, public network (of networks).
You could also run them over a small private network to which only a selection of people belong, e.g., your friends.
In theory, anything you could do with your friends on Facebook you could also do with your friends on your own small private network.
Multiplayer games is something for which this idea of "being on the same network", all at the same time, is well-suited. This is not a new concept. It is a very old one. Consequently, it's time-tested.
But playing games is only one example of what you can do.
The internet supports many services.
Theoretically, so too can your smaller network.
An obvious difference between doing things on the open internet (Facebook) and doing them on your own network is: _privacy_.
You do not have to invite advertisers and countless others to your private network if you do not want to. Might this be important to some people? That is an open question.
_Privacy_, of the kind discussed in the Facebook context, is the goal which the "solution" we are discussing aims to address.
Not simply "private mesaging" but privacy in everything you do with your friends online.
Rest assured, even if such a solution did exist and could be shown to work (NAT and whatever other issues you might predict have been solved), all the Facebook-type user interface doo-dahs are noticeably absent.
As such, it is a non-starter for any friend who cannot use a command line, unless some very good user interface developers got behind it.
If it's always the same small group of people, create a gmail/hotmail account and give them all the username and password. Leave messages for each other in the Drafts (no need to send emails). Yes, I do know the downsides.
Or, find a FB messaging or forum app and get your friends to install it.
And all the mainstream messaging services to date have been centralised, at least in the sense that they involve interacting with a third party server.
When each friend can be both a client and/or a server, no third party servers are necessary. In theory (and practice), this is something you can achieve on a small network consisting only of your friends.
What if all your friends want to be online at the same time?
What if they want to share photos and video while online at the same time?
What if they want to play games with each other while online at the same time?
You can currently do these things with the mainstream web-based services like Facebook. But they are recording everything you say and do _and_ selling that information for profit. You don't receive any portion of that profit.
Is it unreasonable for a consumer to want complete control over a device from the moment she powers on?
Is there a certain level beneath which it is not reasonable to give consumers (optional) access? (Should consumers be prevented from "rooting" devices? Should we allow companies to maintain control over devices, e.g. having them "phone home", after they sell them?)
If yes, why?
Maybe a rootkit should just be viewed just like the crapware that comes pre-installed on a PC. Sure it will help some company and perhaps the consumer herself, if she decides to use it. But it's _optional_.
Maybe they could give consumers an easy way to opt-out.
So you think that with no SEC the public will be safer from people like Madoff?
Do you think that investors would be able to make sound investment decisions without companies having any reporting requirements? Not every country in the world has such requirements and I think the SEC in that regard alone (call it a "success" if you will) is something to be commended.
It's one thing to say people at the SEC are not doing their jobs. But it's another thing to question the rationale and purpose behind the regulations. Are you doing both? Or just one?
If I'm not mistaken the senator is only doing the later.
The agency has undergone "Regulatory Capture" and therefore does nothing to stop insiders like Madoff and hassles law abiding companies. The fact that they exist gives people a false sense of security that anything you can buy from a stock broker is not an outright fraud. Without them people would do the due diligence on their own. Any outright frauds could be handled by local police or FBI if it crosses state lines. Again, the whistle blower in the Madoff case thought he was done by sending info to the SEC; he might have gotten farther with a local DA or the FBI
So where does the investor obtain the information to perform due diligence? Are companies required to file reports? If so, with whom do they file them?
