petar

And the article is back up on the original link.

While the blog is "Over Quota", use this alternative link to the article:

  http://petar.svbtle.com/

Sorry folks. Should be back up soon. In the meantime, there is a mirror article here:

http://petar.svbtle.com/

The Teleport Tool is similar to Reliable Sockets in purpose. There are some differences as well. It looks like Reliable Sockets are not multi-threaded and they do not include connection pooling, which the Teleport Tool does. It also seems that the Reliable Sockets project has been abandoned.

I looked at this link. It seems that the tenmax product is substantially different than the Teleport Tool. There seems to be a superficial similarity in their names.

A nice way to put it: "extendeding the concept of screen to the network in a transparent way". Thanks.

You could implement something like the Teleport Tool using 0mq or RabbitMA or other such. The difference is that this approach would be: (a) Heavy-weight, because you require a whole deployment of these messaging queues, (b) It is not decentralized: there's the message queue, in the middle; and therefore it is not portable. Where would you put the 0mq if you were trying to teleport from home to work? At home? At work? You don't need to worry about this with the Teleport Tool.

The other commenter has a good answer and I will re-iterate (I'm the author): Sure you can everything the old school way. The point is that being able to replace processes with in-program constructs is both less expensive resource-wise (memory, OS engagement, etc.) as well as more convenient to program (and thus making the programmer more productive). Language design questions are very much about how to make the programming process more productive and less error prone. So the focus should be on convenience. Of course, you can do everything the old-fashioned way (but that's not the point).

I don't know if there's anything new about it, but I have not seen disk encryption with plausible deniability before. From my point of this, this is new. This should be (could be) an important building block of anonymizing projects like Tor and Tonika.

To this meta comment, my response is: It is true that some good ideas rise from non-academics. However, if you have an extensive view on academic literature you will also know that any idea that enters the spotlight (like Bitcoin) usually gets picked up by the academic community and gets examined. This never happened to Bitcoin.

One attack that was discussed by an economist (in an article I saw on HN) was an attack based on inserting multiple malicious bank servers.

None of which seems to have anything to do with Bitcoin.

Oh, and, the original Bitcoin paper -- I don't believe is published in a venue that is well known (or even known).

Of course there are. The identities and "distributed part" has to do with the servers that keep record of things in Bitcoin. In fact, a few months ago an economist wrote an article (which was here on HN) that described how the protocol among the "bank" servers in Bitcoin can be broken if there is a coalition of other "bank" servers that choose deviate. This was, in Computer Science terms, one expression of a Sybil Attack.

You should check Wikipedia for the background on Sybil Attacks.

Yes, but this is not my attitude. This is the attitude of the entire Computer Science community. That's my point. No one seems to have pointed this out before.

My take on this:

  http://popalg.org/schmidt-response

This article, one in a series of articles complaining about HN's decreasing quality, continues to reinforce two beliefs of mine:

(1) A new, better designed version of HN is needed, and (2) A design that does not "water down" from the perspective of EVERY reader MUST be based on reader's choices which will result in different users seeing different things (people don't have the same tastes, and these tastes evolve).

I have a very concrete proposal of how this should be done:

  http://popalg.org/curated-by-choice-part-1

What I don't know is this: If I were to implement the above news website, how would it take off the ground at first. Give me a convincing story and I will do it.

This pain point has been addressed before. One proposed solution is given here:

  http://popalg.org/curated-by-choice-part-1

Implementation pends user excitement and suggestion for how to start-up.

Yes. This is what I meant regarding what the problem is. The mention of SUNDR was more of a side comment on how one might implement a service whose only job is to store your data without being able to understand it. I wanted to point out that it is possible. But this is a technicality anyway. The big questions are:

(a) What does it even mean to require that the cloud companies provide you with a mechanism of converting the cloud data to some common format that you can use without the cloud app. In some cases, there might be no such common format. And,

(b) Do cloud companies have an incentive to play along and provide you this way out. It would be work for them. Somehow they need to care.

These are questions with unclear answers. Yet, the problem stays: your time and data are completely unprotected. What is more problematic is that the common user is not sophisticated enough to be aware of the (high) chances that the cloud app they use will go bankrupt and shut down leaving them with nothing.

Valid concern. I wonder what is a good common-denominator solution.

Sorry. Fixed it.

I was 5. My parents bought me a Sinclair ZX Spectrum, and since I couldn't afford buying games on cassettes, I started by typing in game source code from magazines and then I quickly started trying to change them at which point I learned programming pretty quickly, since there was a strong incentive behind it.