On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:21:38AM -0500, wayne wrote:
|
| Well, for me, that is a HUGE problem. Yes, we are supposed to be
| discussing identities right now, but we *have* to look far more than
| one step ahead. Before we accept an identity, we should not only have
| a very good idea of what the algorithm should be, but we should have a
| good idea of how spammers/phishers will react and adapt. Yeah, we
| should also have a good idea about the semantics and even the syntax.
|
I would like to state that I agree with Wayne re the holistic nature of
what we're doing. Rigid adherence to "step 1: pick an identity; step 2:
decide what to do with it; step 3: decide syntax" is like playing chess
by saying "first, decide which piece to move; second, pick it up; third,
decide where to move it; fourth, put it down."
The writer E.L. Doctorow said:
Writing is like driving at night in the fog. You can only see as far as
your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way.
Unfortunately, that's more true of novels than of specifications.