But which is it? Are we centralizing or decentralizing right now? I tend to lose track. As far as I know, the current "cloud" talk mostly means "storage of your data on our servers". I've seen it used this way a lot in the "smart phone" context. I'm guessing that because we don't know where the servers are, we're supposed to think this is a form of decentralization. As if vagueness were the same as decentralization! We send our data off into the great unknown, and...well...that's a decentralized as it gets, right?

Not really, of course; it's jargon that is intended to get people to think that they're storing their data on neutral, trustworthy servers. If the instructions actually said "back up your personal data to the Google (or Apple) server", then we might ask if we can really trust Gapple with that data . But if we keep our stuff in a cloud...well, who asks about the integrity of clouds?

The other way I've heard "cloud" used is as a form of wishful thinking that features programs executing on unspecified servers, along with our data. Of course, if the wish comes true, it will be Gapple servers that run the programs and keep the data, but we won't be troubled with that level of detail. (For all I know, this sense of "cloud computing" has already been implemented, and everybody is doing it—and I'm just so totally out of it that I haven't noticed.)

For what it's worth, I saw fluffy things labeled "The Cloud" on gee-whiz marketing slides for a super-computing company I used to work for back in 1998. Nobody knew what it was, of course (yes, I asked, bad move if you cared whether Marketing liked you). I'd say it was—and is—a marketing meme trying to push its way into reality.

You're certainly entitled to your likes and dislikes, but if I want to see a favorite image, I'll load it myself, thank you. When I launch a program, I'm not doing art, I just want to use the program...and I don't want to see what amounts to an advertisement for the program before it graciously allows me to use it. There's often some sort of semi-hidden setting that allows you to hide the splashscreen, but I think it should be turned off by default—at least after the first time it's shown.

Bingo. One of the things that has always bothered me about the global the warming/climate change thesis that its advocates predict nothing but negative consequences. That's extremely improbable. Even if we grant that these theories are correct, it's clear that their proponents stress the negative impact because they need to induce fear to motivate funding and to justify the additional bureaucratic power that they crave.

The word "meme" has been used in such a way that its meaning has become elastic to the point of being void. I take you to be saying that the notion of a group called "Anonymous" is something that has been floated by certain people to obtain media attention. If so, I agree, and admit that it's silly of me to attack an imaginary organization created for purposes of propaganda. So permit me to amend my statement: the people who have recently been conducting DoS attacks, hacking various web sites and data servers for political reasons and who are not associated with any government or corporate entity are vigilante thugs. (The ones associated with real organizations are thugs loyal to their particular organization.) You're quite right, precision in thought and writing is important, and I am always grateful when people force me to be more articulate.

Maybe so, but creating an imaginary organization can have real and adverse legal consequences. It could provide a pretext for criminal conspiracy charges under RICO. A court might have very limited sympathy with the defense's claim that the organization in which the defendants publicly claimed membership really doesn't exist. I'm not saying that this is right, I'm saying this is a potential onerous legal consequence. Also, the nebulous nature of the Anonymous "organization" creates very obvious opportunities for action by agents provocateur of the government or other interests. If the government wants to discredit the stated beliefs and actions of individuals who are associated—at least in the public mind— with "Anonymous, then the available methods are obvious. You are naive anonymous children.

What is a "billboard service"? Perhaps you are referring to recent DOS attacks against certain web sites. I agree that these are completely trivial publicity stunts. When they—whoever they are—disrupt, for example, electronic communications and services actually used by the Department of Justice in its operations, then we would be talking about "cyber warfare". However, it is entirely possible to be thuggish without engaging in hand-to-hand violence. Some anonymous group (notice my judicious use of the lower case "a") recently hacked Stratfor, and compromised the private data of many of its subscribers. I was one of them. (Stratfor offered me a deep discount for a one year trial, but I didn't renew—they charge far more than their service is worth.) As a result of this data breach, the bank has cancelled my credit card. They've given me a new one, but now I have to figure out all the automatic bill payments I had set up with that card, and convert them to the new account number. I also get to worry about what else is going to be done to me with whatever data was compromised by these thugs. The email address was a one-of, so that's not a serious problem, but still an invasion of my privacy.

I call them damned thugs. I don't know who the cowards are, but I call them thugs. And now I get to worry about the possible retribution that my statements may attract from them.

Barret Brown? Never heard of the bastard. As for "political change", Lenin, Hitler and the devil were all for it. To judge the type of change that is desired by such advocates, examine the character of their actions. On the basis of this criterion, I say that they are self-righteous, childish and cowardly bastards. Clear enough for you?

There was a time in my life, when I was very young, stupid and wrong, when I used pretty much the same rationalization: I am poor, therefore I steal. Without condemning you for sins I committed in my own youth (and I do hope you are very young), I remind you that another person has worked hard to create these tools that you need, and that taking the fruits of his labors from him without payment is unjust. I also ask you to consider how you will feel in about 10 or 20 years, when after much hard work you create something valuable—and people steal it.

Do you truly have no alternatives? Can't you find shareware or freeware that will do the job? How about writing the tool yourself? If you are working on something that you hope will be of value to others, and you truly need this tool, then perhaps you should save up the money and buy it. A truly archaic concept, I know...

Cheez, you want me to be articulate? What a hard audience; in any case, I only do that for money. But as a special one-time favor, I will attack you articulately without charge: your confusion of "authority" with "power" is a solecism.

What I said was pretty much what I meant: there are logical difficulties with any claim that one belongs (or does not belong) to an anonymous organization. (OK, I should have defined "anonymous organization" as "an organization none of whose members are known to each other or to any outsider".) To elaborate, I think that "anonymous organization" is problematic in a way similar to "anarchist government". Of course, philosophical objections have never prevented people from saying things like, "I am a member of the Anarchist army" (e.g. the one that fought in the Spanish Civil War), or "I am a member of an anonymous group". That's because most people don't think like philosophers—they are neither sufficiently obsessive nor perverse.

And—do I really have to say this—I wasn't being entirely serious. Please forgive me for not being more amusing.

I'd like to know that also, but I can understand why the writer didn't want to reveal any details—next thing you know, he'll be branded an enemy of the people, and Anonymous will ruin him. This is war, and all sides are saying "if you're not with us, we'll shoot you".

The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the so-called "pirates" are victims of prejudicial nomenclature—a label hung on them by their enemies. Historically, the question of who is and who is not a "pirate" has been a matter of viewpoint. In fact, you could become a licensed pirate—er freebooter—by getting a letter of marque and reprisal from some needy country. "Freebooter" sounds much nicer than "pirate", doesn't it? Certainly, it';s no worse than "greedy CEO".

Is that how it's done in your country? Here in the U.S.A., we consider people innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Unless, of course, they piss off our owners.

Yeah, "Anonymous" is a bunch of vigilante thugs, as far as I'm concerned.

I have to wonder: if you're part of an anonymous group, then you don't know who else is a member of your group, right? So you can't very well disavow any action done by someone who says they're "Anonymous". It's just another guy wearing the same silly mask as you are--how do you know he's not a member of your group? For that matter, how do you know you are a member of the group? If "Anonymous" were serious, and if it were really a group, it would work out a way so that their actions can be authenticated as being those of the one, true "Anonymous". I'm sure they will welcome suggestions by the highly qualified (and mostly anonymous) members of this community.