hawkett: 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.
You are right but I am not more in a hurry than anyone else and after the crash the number of cheap idle resources available will be tremendous. I am a very patient man I have waited for that for 15 years I bet you $1 that the owners of these resources have more money than I but a lot less patience. On 25 May 2010 00:29, Keren Or Shalom <[email protected]> wrote: > hawkett said: > > 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? > > > I am an economist not a dreamer: a credit is a contract. The willingness to > sign it is based on the belief that it will be enforced. > If there is no enforcement of such a contract I bet you $1 that no body > will do enter that kind of contract. Moreover I don't have to explain how > data mining can help spot a transaction that is not a regular economic > transaction but a credit. > > On 25 May 2010 00:25, Keren Or Shalom <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Please make your remarks shorts and focussed: >> >> I will answer to all I have received but break them down to something we >> can digest: >> >> hawkett said >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> It all depends on how much my system can create demand: you are reacting >> just as if the previous system didn't existed and we stayed in a vacuum. My >> system is designed to feel the vacuum. >> >> >> On 24 May 2010 16:08, hawkett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> @gops this style of system is the holy grail of distributed systems, >>> however the model you have suggested perhaps suffers from lack of >>> redundancy. If only you have your data (or some of your data), and >>> only you have access to it, then failure at that point represents >>> total loss. The solution is a network of trust and redundant copies of >>> your data and multiple people with the capacity to access it. The >>> biggest problem we have with this solution is bandwidth and network >>> latency. Keeping copies of data in different locations is expensive >>> on both those fronts - especially if you want decent consistency, and >>> especially between your computer and my computer. Another problem is >>> that if publicly available data on your node is popular - then you >>> need massive resources to be able to meet that demand - as you noted, >>> a problem is the need for you to maintain your node. Perhaps the data >>> distribution you mention is intended to solve these problems. >>> >>> For many classes of application, the cloud is actually the best we can >>> do at the moment with the state of technology. Companies like google, >>> amazon etc. *do* distribute data like this. However to solve the >>> bandwidth and latency issues that come with the need for good >>> consistency, they need to manage the clusters. I expect that one of >>> the major reasons google is pushing hard for better bandwidth and >>> lower latency for everyone is to expand the possibilities for this >>> type of architecture. It won't be too long before our web browser is >>> also a web server. I don't doubt that this forms a large part of the >>> vision for Chrome OS. Another huge help will be getting people >>> comfortable with eventual consistency. >>> >>> One of the key future applications of the social web is the >>> application of networks of trust that allow us to distribute data to >>> trusted nodes - the best people to store redundant copies of your data >>> are the people you trust personally. It sounds like the guys on that >>> link you posted are really pushing the boundaries of this stuff. >>> >>> Resistance is futile :) >>> >>> >>> On May 24, 12:52 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 ยป >>> >>> -- >>> 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]<google-appengine%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> V07768198309 >> > > > > -- > V07768198309 > -- V07768198309 -- 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.
