@keren, i may not have economical expertise , but one thing is sure , as long as this world is running from greed and passion of people ( imho, 2 holiest emotion ) , the economy is not going to down for sure.
On May 24, 4:52 pm, gops <[email protected]> wrote: > @hawkett last line was the perfect answer to @keren. > > instead of making a central system on cloud , designing a software > that is very highly distributed using highest encryption standard is a > way to go. > > on some level , people athttp://www.joindiaspora.com/are doing that > thing at social networking level. ( personally i dont think doing this > on top of other http or https protocol is good idea. even > though creating/defining protocol is hard work , it should be done > directly on top of tcp/ip level. ) > > that way, i own my own server at my own location with my own data > fully encrypted and accessible only to me. then i delegate > data through defined protocol to other person or system ( be it a > company , a bank , a friend , a community etc.. ) with different level > of data and security access. same way, other system, > users and bank etc will delegate their data to my server to similar > encryption channels. > > distributing data this way will remove "scalability need" altogether. > and application complexity will reduce dramatically as they do not > have to take care of 1000's of connection or users. but it will arise > problem for myself to maintain my server , will force to learn a new > software etc and learn the system, may be your own private virtual > server is a new commodity of the future. > > my two cents. :D > > On May 24, 4:08 pm, hawkett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A small issue if the economy goes down the drain on the scale you are > > talking about is that an internet where everyone has the capability to > > connect to a cloud system is going to be difficult to maintain. It's > > not going to be easy for google to make money, for individuals to pay > > their internet bills, for internet companies to continue to deliver > > access - indeed you may find it difficult for yourself to make money > > or pay for the developers you are proposing to hire. What value will > > money have? How will google pay its employees to continue to deliver > > app engine - ad revenues are going to plummet. I think if your system > > is anticipating the total collapse of the economy, then you may find > > it difficult to deliver your system to what remains. > > > When you say credit free currency, do you mean credit free society? > > How do you plan to make it credit free - through legislation? What's > > to stop me lending some currency I have in your system to someone - or > > making a purchase on their behalf in exchange for a purchase by them > > of something more valuable at a later date? That scenario is > > essentially an interest bearing loan. The system and those that use > > it exist in a symbiosis - you can't change one without addressing the > > other - it's hard to see how you will create a credit free society > > without addressing the psychology of the people within that economy - > > people need to *want* to avoid credit, and when you haven't got much, > > and others seem to have so much, credit is an insidiously attractive > > proposition - it's easy to market and sell. You'll probably need to > > address the gulf between rich and poor, and marketing of impossible, > > unaffordable goals to remove credit from society - perhaps you feel > > that economic collapse will do that. Does your plan deal effectively > > with the reality of the flawed, selfish human being? I guess I'm > > asking about your second point - is it based on a global societal > > enlightenment occurring due to the economic collapse? > > > If you don't have much money to back this venture then a few points > > stand out > > > 1. The cloud is *much* cheaper than any custom hardware installation > > you can come up with. Security isn't just data security - you need to > > manage backups, uptime, support, maintenance, facilities, redundancy, > > disaster recovery - long list of stuff that will cost you buckets > > before you even get started. > > > 2. You need to do some risk assessment. There are always risks, and > > many of them - there is no perfectly secure system, and it is > > important not to try and sell such a thing. It is just a matter of how > > you rate each risk, and important that the stakeholders understand the > > risk and agree to it - the last thing you want to have is a > > conversation where someone says 'You told me it was secure!!!'. It > > can't be secure unless it is truly inaccessible to everything and > > everyone, and you can't build a system around that :). Risk assessment > > is generally subjective - what is the chance of someone obtaining a > > password they shouldn't? What is the chance of the cloud vendor > > exposing data? What is the chance that your code contains bugs? What > > is the chance of the cloud vendor losing your data entirely > > -http://gigaom.com/2009/10/10/when-cloud-fails-t-mobile-microsoft-lose... > > The list goes on. If you build a system where there is perceived value > > in subverting it, then it will probably be subverted. It is much > > better to cope with it than try to prevent it (you can't prevent it). > > What you need to prevent against is the possibility that any > > particular problem or combination of problems results in total > > failure. > > > Some key questions you need to ask - > > > 'What is the worst that can possibly happen?' > > 'How likely is it?' > > 'What can I do to reduce the worst that can possibly happen, and the > > chance that it will happen - i.e. how do I mitigate my risk?' > > 'Can I afford to implement mitigation strategy X, Y or Z?' > > 'Am I prepared to accept the consequences of the risk being realised?' > > Usually it is easier to answer yes to this question when the rewards > > (not necessarily financial) are higher. > > > You need to deliver a system that allows you to answer yes to the last > > question, for every risk you identify. Sometimes you cannot reach the > > point where the answer is 'yes' - the risk is not worth the reward. > > > <slight political rant (IMO)> > > A good example is the recent financial crisis. The banking sector took > > risks, understanding that the worst possible outcome (for them) was > > not actually as bad as is being portrayed - they felt that they would > > still not fail because they commanded enough political power to rely > > on federal funds. So what seemed incredibly risky behaviour by the > > banks, was, in fact, not all that risky - because they had shored up > > their political power to mitigate their risk. Consequently, the worst > > that could possibly happen with all the risks the banks took was that > > they would be fine. And largely, they are fine. Good risk management > > they would say - it wasn't all that risky. Not for them. Incredibly > > risky for the taxpayer, but that risk wasn't their concern - at least > > not from their perspective. You can be sure that it was a possibility > > they were aware of. The nation(s), however, totally lost a handle on > > their risk management - the banks should never have been allowed to > > reach a position where they could mitigate their risk with federal > > funds - essentially the risk was transferred to the tax payer. If they > > were unable to do that, then they wouldn't have taken the risks in the > > first place, because they could not have answered 'yes' to the last > > question. It is difficult to see how the nation(s) could have avoided > > this problem though - the stakeholders (the citizens) have very > > limited means by which to limit the subversion of power from within > > their political process - most of these powerful people within > > government are not elected. > > </slight political rant (IMO)> > > > You might also consider an approach to security like Google's - they > > offer a platform so compelling that many customers will use the system > > despite google making no promises on security or reliability - 'use at > > your own risk'. Is your product so compelling that you can mitigate > > some of your risk by transferring it to your customers? Google also > > benefits here from significant goodwill and reputation, but that takes > > time and evidence - we have seen in their reaction to the Chinese > > hacking scandal that they take the compromise of customer data very > > seriously. > > > My gut feel is that the security you want, you can't afford - so use > > the cloud, encrypt the personal data you need to, and mitigate the > > remaining risk by transferring it to your users. Just make them aware > > of the risk they are taking - you might find they'll accept that risk > > and use your system anyway. Where google basically says 'Trust us, > > we're Google', you need to say 'Trust me, it's on Google'. Most of the > > customers that would go for the first statement will go for the > > second. > > > You say it would not be responsible to trust google - but this is what > > you are asking of your customers - to trust you with the security of > > their information. Trust is a huge factor in risk assessment and > > security. Many banks trust third party organisations with customer > > information, or to write software that secures customer information. > > You're going to have to trust someone. > > > I think history and common sense tells us that our economy will > > probably go down the chute at some point - our system is pretty > > tightly strung, and doesn't cope very well with fairly minor > > disturbances. It's utterly dependent upon confidence, and totally > > global. Natural systems manage risk through redundancy and diversity - > > failure doesn't bring the whole thing down. I doubt our brilliant idea > > of having one global economy is going to have nature going - 'Hey, why > > didn't I think of that?' - more like - 'Tried that, didn't work - you > > should have asked. In the meantime, here's a small icelandic volcano > > to deal with - get the idea?'. We are selfish idiots ruled by selfish > > idiots, urging each other to become more so. Probably not the best > > architecture we could come up with. Our society could learn something > > from the way we build distributed software. > > > On May 24, 7:06 am, Keren Or Shalom > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
