Today you don't understand, but perhaps given enough time you might accumulate the wisdom to understand my point.

If you think the flaw in the system is the central, good for you.

You will also be ignorant of the history of the internet, but that's ok and with enough time you'll either see my point or not.

But to relate to what you understand today, I would say that doesn't anonymity contribute to a healthy internet --- even semi-anonmymity as you might understand it with what you understand --- and your idea is that this would discarded because of Boogeyman (NSA or Russians or whatever).

We have been down that road before, it didn't work. And it is okay if you don't know enough about the past to know these past attempts failed, that's just part of the learning experience.

A server in the middle that acts as a central point.

I get what you are saying, but exposing IP addresses to 3rd parties isn't typically desirable.

Case in point, I don't have your IP address. And you don't have mine.

Sure email works like that (although possibly less so in current era with gmail and such, then again maybe not), but many services don't. Sure, the service provider --- the middleman --- has access to that, but the other users don't.

A solution to a problem isn't necessarily a knee-jerk opposite solution (centralized vs. decentralized) but often some variation of an existing successful model that is slightly flawed, correcting *ONLY* the part that is flawed, not the parts of the service infrastructure that work well.

It is a legitimate concern. Mocking it doesn't allay the concern.

Well phrased.

" There are probably more habitable moons around those gas giants than all the other kinds of planets put together."

Gas giants have massive radiation belts caused by their magnetosphere. Moons around a gas giant can't have life as we know it. Even going anywhere near Jupiter's space would expose an astronaut to an intense dose of radiation.

Quote: "If astronauts were able to approach the planet as close as the Voyager 1 spacecraft did, they would receive a dose of 400,000 rads, or roughly 1,000 times the lethal dose for humans." https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/s...

Understandably you misjudged what I was saying because I phrased it poorly.

Microsoft Office is a form of peer-pressure where people with little technical knowledge have "heard of it".

This social peer-pressure, in itself, does not make Microsoft Office a better or worse product. And the social peer-pressure does not open solutions a better or worse product.

But makes it a known product. (Unfortunately, the open solutions are not on par with MS Office, for all of MS Office's flaws).

I'm sort of kidding, but at the same time Microsoft actively maintains their bloatware and has profit as a motivation to do so.

And "normal people" are used to it because as sheep, they are familiar with the product.

On the other hand, the various open solutions are ok on a screen shot level and for very elementary tasks, but unfortunately when you go to do complicated things, you frequently find the Microsoft product has a feature to handle it and the open solution either doesn't or it is rather messy.

Which is a shame. Firefox gets $$$ (from Google) and can afford to polish up, but the open source office solutions --- while nice --- are not polished to such a level.

>one hour of working your social network looking for a referral is equivalent to roughly 12 hours of submitting web-based job applications

You have a very well phrased expression there. Communicates very effectively!

There is no relationship between an online job application and getting a job.

Online job applications are neglected because no one needs 10,000 online forms filled out for 1 job.

"NFL charges exorbitant prices for tickets" ...

" punishes fans by preventing them from watching the game if the NFL can't sell enough stadium tickets"

"NFL yearly profits reportedly number in the billions.".

Sounds like the obvious answer is "Then don't watch it."

But I can see this article isn't about rationality, but about "I want to watch it" and "I want it to be free" and "I want it available under my terms".

That isn't true. Sports don't exist to be elitist and show others that you're better than they are.

That is the definition of "competition".

You find competition in everything whether you are talking elite coders, spelling bee champions, among sales people and amongst companies.

Some people said Steve Jobs was "elitist".

Competition brings out those characteristics. Sports is a way that it is done where the arena is physical prowess.

>A lot of phenomena in astrophysics are ridiculous, but real.

No there are many ideas in astrophysics. We don't know if they are real.

Dark matter? Maybe or maybe not. Dark energy? Maybe or maybe not.

Hawking radiation? It is an idea, it hasn't been proven or disproven.

Speed of light limitation? Probably, but how are neutrinos that have mass going 99.9999% the speed of light? That should require almost infinite energy shouldn't it?

Big bang? A large body of evidence points to a time limit to the beginning of the universe, but cosmic background radiation is the only stronger evidence of a big bang --- yet this could have another explanation.

Cosmic inflation? Could be a non-starter for reasons we currently don't have a handle on --- case in point, it is only happening *far away*. Supernova are used as standard candles, but what if we had different looking supernova 10 billion years ago and our measurements are wrong, therefore inflation isn't happening.

Astrophysics is an emerging field, even now. There are few ways to test all the ideas.

Many of the theories of the exotic blackholes rest precariously on a shaky house of cards, because there is no convenient way to test the ideas.

The ipv6 traffic is probably almost all cellphone bandwidth.

A guess.

Maybe for voting, I don't see your argument on the freedom of speech thing or the other ones.

And land was cheap and plentiful and plenty of trees to cut down and make log cabins.

Not many very apartment renters back then, as you seem to apply was going on.

In 1948, the United States voted for that declaration.

"n 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly by a vote of 48 in favor, none against"

This was the West announcing their idea of human rights.

(see Wikipedia)