If you can't beat the hare, well....you just change the rules of the race. Um....yep.

I remember running Photoshop 3 in OS/2 at a publishing shop. No issues. It subjectively felt more robust than Windows. About 10 years back I worked at a telecommunications company. I was surprised to see that all of their comms hardware was running OS/2 or Solaris. The IT admin told me that they were very good for utility computing. Once you had the system in place on premis, you very rarely if ever had to worry about it. I suppose that once your have the formula for a solid system, you don't want changes and updates. You just want it to do the one thing it does really well.. OS/2 was good at this.

I think that the analytics which decide these things are mislead into making misleading statement, not because they are faulty, but because most people try to avoid being perceived as dicks, in one form, or another.

McDonalds Australia has had this for a year or more. It creates more orders on the back end, but for people who want anything customised, they still go to the counter. In my experience as a client, people only check out the kiosk as a novelty, or if there are long lines.

I was going to make this same suggestion.

Once the internet became a thing regulated by government as opposed to technologists, it was lost. The intangible reality of it was lost, and now you can steal things off of the internet...even though we the owners and thieves know this is a false economy, at the end of the tunnel there is real money. So now the wrong people have taken interest and subsequently control. A new unregulated internet has to be created which is something more than a layer of encryption laid over the original. We've fucked this one up completely and all of the wrong people control something they will never understand but simply want things from. Now that that we know idiots will take over the internet, can't we start think about an even better system?

Isn't it odd how the US government seems to openly and willfully emulate all of the hacks and cracks it deems to be illegal? Each branch has an agenda, often not in the interest or to the benefit of the people of the US...and each never has to be answerable. Perfectly innocent exploration and discovery is now a criminal act. I guess it's like killing a person, or a large group of people. You can't do it, unless you're killing for the government. Then it's not only okay, but heroic. I shouldn't pick on the US, many governments are ran this way. I just don't like my government exhibiting this hypocrisy. It's a matter of, if they'll do it to someone else...they'll do it to you as well. Also, who's Jeremy Hammond?

I remember seeing the precursor to this question asked many years ago on Slashdot; "Should governments be allowed to regulate the internet?" and the resounding answer was, "No, that will break the internet." And here we are, asking the same fundamental question over again...but this time we're asking :Should corporate interests control the internet? The answer is: No. No fucking way. So...the next question is; "How do we recreate the internet in its previous form?" It's a very nice thing we had that's been somewhat ruined. I intuitively suspect that with all of the tech available we can abandon the higher levels of the OSI and fork off to a safer place where people are free to say whatever they want to, post anything, express themselves freely without fear of imprisonment. I know bad people with terrible agendas might love such a place...but perhaps we can keep it out of their reach through technology. Or let them on it...because everything is equal....the ethical questions are almost a quagmire. But...do you feel your internet is safer than it was 20 years ago? I don't.

Because everyone knows the only way to beat discrimination is by discriminating.

So, we are expected to believe that all government email resides on individual workstations, as opposed to a centralized server that gets backed up reguarly? That's simply absurd.

It's going to be someone lazy. Why not an Australian? What are you? Prejudiced?

The author seems to be assuming that the internet is not already regulated by governments. Even though the technology has improved, the idea of anonymously and freely exploring this new frontier can only be achieved by circumventing government policies enacted a decade ago. I remember the question "Should governments regulate the internet?" was met with a resounding "No!" even as it was being implemented. I think the topic is about 12 years too late.

Of course once they license this animal, it would be to their shareholders benefit to see wild salmon perish so everytime someone buys or sells salmon, they get to tag on their licensing fee. It also opens the doors for the acceptance of more infertile animals guaranteed to die off in the name of profit. Sustained extinction. A truly sustainable Salmon farm would be considerably more sound for humanity, but not as profitable for the license holders.

I intuit that this is simply a SQUID server with a custom downloaded blacklist. If not...it could be...and you wouldn't have to pay for it. But yeah, hook this up and I'm sure it will have no negative effects or collate data then sell it to retailers. That's not intuition though...it's sardonicism...I think. Maybe just sarcasm. Certainly cynicism.

Saying 'Let's fuck.' could be complimentary and appropriate to one person in one instance, and offensive or even menacing in another. You shouldn't, for instance, use this phrase in most job interviews. If you're the type of person who has to learn this the hard way, so be it. We must hold onto these diminishing rights, stripped away by nanny state laws. Trolls are a symptom of much larger issues. They don't exist because of the internet. It is the site moderator who should decide how to deal with them, and isn't in the pervue of any government. It is a terrible mistake to allow any government to dictate taste.