Now you're just being stupid.

Dictionary: Adj: Secret: kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged

If you have a secret that you share with just a few and keep the rest of us in the dark, that is a conspiracy, and conspiracies are a threat to peoples freedom.

Is it a number? Is it a plan to seize control over the water supply? I don't know, but you've expended extraordinary effort to keep me from knowing what it is, which means I can't assure myself that I'm secure and further implies to me that if I knew what you were doing I'd be motivated to put a stop to it.

Your secrets keep me from having access to concrete facts, and that is the reason that they represent a threat.

Now, fuck off, coward.

Great illustration.

On my desktop, over the LAN, with caching forcibly disabled, HTTP took 5.3 seconds and was 9% slower than HTTPS.

On my mobile, over WiFi, again, with caching forcibly disabled, HTTP took 6.8 seconds and HTTPS took 10.8 seconds, 33% slower, AND instead of consumed 2 MB of data because caching couldn't be used.

On my mobile, over the cellular network, HTTP took 18 seconds, and HTTPS took 30 seconds, 69% slower, AND consumed 2 MB of data.

So, considering that mobile is huge and growing, THIS IS A DUMB IDEA.

Yeah, set up encrypted WebRTC with multiple peers from a mobile device, and see now negligible it is.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Freedom does not require you to operate in secret. If you feel the need to operate in secret, either you need to fix your culture, or you need to fix yourself.

Preventing misrepresentation is a social positive. Preserving secrecy is a social negative. Compromises have to be made, but protecting your secrets is not a noble goal in and of itself, shouldn't be necessary in a free society, and in fact represents a threat to other peoples freedom.

Encryption has a cost, it isn't free. It increases CPU utilisation and power consumption. It interferes with caching and reduces network efficiency.

This is a dumb idea. A very dumb idea.

Better question is, if you can directly stimulate the brain and cause pleasure, why bother opening your eyes?

Oh right. Because movies are with propaganda, and the point of the brain stimulation is to break your capacity for critical evaluation.

I'll pass, thanks. I read Spider Robinson, I know how this turns out, and I don't feel like being found sitting in a pile of my own excrement with a beatific grin on my face...

Well, the ones I helped build provide food for the community farmers in their individual plots, and they also provide freshly picked vegetables to local upscale restaurants, and they also provide several tons of food to the food bank each year, and they conduct weekly educational sessions, inviting the people who go to the food bank to be direct participants in what is keeping them alive each day.

One of them is surrounded by a "wall of food", a kind of a hedge built entirely of perennial food bearing plants. I ended up coming into that project later in its history, it was your traditional "grid of personal plots in a field" type of urban garden, and the first meeting I went to was a discussion about how to prevent starving homeless people from stealing food from the plots. The wall of food was my idea, inspired by Geoff Lawton's system of building food forests.

"Liking farming" didn't really have that much to do with it for most of the people concerned.

I'm sincere. Distributing 3D printer parts, building urban farms and facilitating copyright violation all come from the same place: A desire to create abundance and destroy scarcity. Might never happen, but that's no reason not to try.

Working hard to protect human culture from those who would prefer to see it surrounded by a most and accessed via a toll bridge controlled by them?

It's not just about having access for myself, it's also about cutting off the money supply to the industry.

Having the Library of Alexandria for myself isn't going to protect me from the ignorance of savages. Only ensuring that they too have a copy can do that.

Will people latch on to this and try to disseminate it? Probably.

Will they be any more impartial than the news media?
Doubtful.

Eventually people might realize that they can't trust reporting, that they must survey things for themselves, and that they shouldn't trust people who make decisions without surveying things for themselves, because those people don't know shit. Probably not, but it could happen.

They'll be old by then, though, and another generation of naive people will be fleeced.

Make a script that pseudorandomly removes and replaces obscure fonts if you're that concerned.

It's called running amok. It's caused by an evil tiger spirit that enters the body and causes us to commit evil acts.

Does this bring anything to the table that Groovy doesn't?

As far as I'm concerned, this is completely unheard-of in my country. Standards are generally pre-set, and if half of the class fails where the previous year's students had few problems, well, that's their problem, nobody's going to lower the standards for this year's class.

The philosophy that schools are intended to teach a certain well thought out base of knowledge and only pass those who demonstrate that they've learned all of it is not universal.
 
It requires a great deal more maturity and responsibility and humility. The teacher needs to be a lot more self critical about what's in the curriculum, the students and parents need to be prepared to accept the fact that their talent and discipline may not be sufficient for the role they've decided they're interested in, and society needs to be prepared to accept that neither needs nor expectations will make a person capable if they don't have the talent or determination necessary.
 
What's popular these days is to just throw together a curriculum that relates to the course subject without regard for whether or not the students can absorb it, then just sort the class from best to worst and push the best ones forward. It's less demanding on the teacher, and it never allows their competence as a teacher to be subjected to critical analysis. It's also less demanding on the students... the teacher doesn't set the bar, the students do. And, society as a whole can look at the schools churning out certified, educated citizens and tell themselves they're doing just fine.
 
This way, when everything goes to shit, they can blame the "other", the ones who didn't play ball with the system, for their societies collapse. And, that's the most important thing. Because no pain is so bad that it can't be made 10 times worse by having someone tell you that it's your own damned fault and knowing that they are right.

It isn't "Voodoo Zombie Kung Fu Womens Prison" movies. Because that turned out to be completely awesome!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt04...