Sure it's possible, but given their history how could you trust them?
It ought to be possible to design an alternative based on interpersonal recommendation. But what do you use for a unique identifier? You need something. Phone number has possibilities, but that, too, is subject to centralized control, AND it identifies the individual, which effectively removes anonymity.
The problem is, you need SOME unique identifier, or nobody can find you to deliver the messages/webpages/etc. I can imagine a hierarchy of geographically based names with the lower level assigned on a collision avoidance kind of approach, which would allow anonymity to the lowest geographical level, say 1024 square kilometers on the average. But you need to remember all the id's you've used, and when you move there would be no way to carry your id (unless the system has some built in way of automatically forwarding calls, which has its own problems).
Sorry, but I have avoided anything sponsored by either the MPAA or the RIAA ever since the Sonny-Bono copyright extension act.
If I felt I absolutely *must* see that movie, I'd feel compelled to donate 3 times the admission cost the the EFF.
No. What you need is a system that is easy to clone, and which n countries can run independently, for n a positive integer.
DNS seems a good choice for the lower layers, but the top layer needs to have a round-robin resolution, such than any root server that don't find the site will pass you on to the next. You need to also, however, be able to specify the starting root, and possibly the 1st alternate, to avoid cache poisoning.
And if you go back further there was a period when nobody had a "job". Everyone worked at hunting, food gathering, or tool making. Nobody owned more than they could easily carry. And people were around as tall as today (which probably means as healthy). Then populations started increasing, somebody invented agriculture, and people started needing to work all the time. But agriculture supported larger populations, even if they were a lot less healthy, and, to all appearances, a lot less happy.
Time doesn't stand still. The question is always "what are the viable ways forwards from here?", and the answers MUST recognize the tendencies of populations to expand until their food supply is insufficient. (There *ARE* ways around that, some quite pleasant[*], but they need to be designed into the system.)
* TV, education of women, video games, etc. are pleasant ways to control the population growth. Some are more effective than others. Populations will inherently evolve to evade the restrictions, but biologic evolutionary time is so slow WRT cultural evolutionary time that this can almost be ignored.
The Midas Plague
The Man who ate the World
I think the first was originally a short story, or a novella, but that it was later expanded into a novel. I only saw the second as a novel.
I found them both unrealistic because they ignore the geometric expansion of populations. Still, they were well done. They should be seen, however, mainly as social criticism written as science fiction.
My first reaction was "Gee, they noticed.".
The point is, to do most jobs you don't need a strong AI. Someting a bit smarter than a horse, but which was better at manipulation would do fine. The jobs that need more are unusual. (And, by the way, logic engines better than human aren't hard. Our strengths are in other areas.)
E.g., for me the hard part of programming is often writing the code. If it gets complex I can run out of short term memory. But for an AI it would be understanding the problem. (Modularizing the code helps me, but when it gets complex either the modules get too large, or there are too many of them to easily deal with. An AI could be designed to not have that problem. Resizable stack depths, etc.)
Posting anonymously removes your credibility as an expert in the field unless your post contains internal evidence justifying this. Yours didn't.
Most jobs don't require all that much intelligence. Many jobs have (and are being) intentionally redesigned to deskill them. This allows wages to be cut, as it's easier to replace the employees.
Much of this is political decision, but they are political decisions enabled by advancing technologies, including AI. A scanner that can recognize the price of an item whatever orientation it is presented with that item in is more intelligent than one that can't. This is true even if part of the intelligence resides in the design of the system (bar codes).
Automated warehouses wouldn't be being built if they weren't cheaper to operate than manned warehouses. They are being built. Therefore the jobs that they would have provided had they not been automated have been removed from the system. This requires approaches that in even the 1990's would have been called AI, but which aren't called that any more.
This is still the leading edge. Google's automated car isn't up to city streets, but it can remove a lot of jobs without having that kind of general capacity. And it will be (is being) improved. Still, even at its current state of development it is quite capable of being extremely useful in many situations. And in those situations it will be removing jobs because if it didn't, it wouldn't be used. It will only be used where it cuts costs, which means removing enough jobs that it pays for not hiring the drivers.
The question then becomes "What new jobs are created by the removal of the existing jobs?" And the answer appears to be "only a few, and those highly skilled". The last time this kind of thing happened nearly an entire generation of horses got turned into dog and cat food. This time it's not horses being put out of work.
Well, I don't commute anymore, but my post was in reply to someone who was replying to someone talking about freeways.
FWIW, I consider busy city streets too dangerous to ride a bicycle on, but I notice that many people disagree with me. I've never used a moped, so I don't know about it's drawbacks, but back when I used to bicycle I once ended up in the street in traffic because the gears stripped. Not a pleasant sensation, even if that time I was only hurt by the pavement. Right about then I decided that bicycles are too dangerous in city traffic...and it's gotten a lot worse since then. (This decade my knees wouldn't let me ride a bike anyway, but...)
Air quality declines, because you increase the number of cars capable of being on the road at the same time. Same with lowering gasoline prices. Make car riding easy, gas-burning increases.
As for a "better" lfe - first, dump the car. It makes you fat, makes your country go to war repeatedly to protect the oil, pollutes us into a super-hot future, and kills and maims more civilians in total than our wars killed soldiers. You just grew up with the carnage, so it's normal and acceptable to you. And it costs us trillions and trillions of dollars (add it up, adjust for inflation since we started building) of tax dollars that could have build a kick-ass mass transit system that connects everywhere in the country. And the costs are snowballing every year becaue we have to maintain all the old as we build the new - but we don't, of course. That's what the "infrastructure" talked about since 1979 mostly is - roads and bridges for cars. We aren't fixing those because we don't want to be taxed enough to do so - so we fall into hell. Except for the wealthy new places, the system is falling apart.
Too many people trying to use too little land in a very stupid fashion.
Mathematically, if you keep increasing the numbers of people, you have gridlock and war over territory (that's what this is). Happens with deer, wolves, oak trees, bacteria, and hydrogen floating in interstellar space trying to form stars.
You control your numbers, or nature steps in and does it the only other way - the four horsemen, singly or in combinations. This will be solved with War - by another name. Laws, road blockages, software mandates, gates, lasers, STD spikes, moats, drawbridges, car-GPS tracking... they'll go to war, save their patches of land, and make the problem worse somewhere else, which will in turn push back.
In this case, the problem is racism, conservatism (cars uber alles), and a terrible transportation system that insists on moving people around in the own private houses on wheels because reasons. There is a numerical limit on the number of boxes moving around on ribbons at the same time and LA exceeded that limit long ago.
PS You don't own your neighborhood streets. That what "street" means. Not that it will stop them from "owning" them anyway.
"Zoning laws are just one way to codify those agreements."
And keep out the poors and negroes. You all're not fooling anyone.
Thing that happens in Europe (Paris, for instance) is that the rich move into the cities, passive-aggressively remove the poor, then make a nice pedestrian friendly enclave for people like them, and no one else. They call it a donut city - rich middle, surrounded by the now-poverty-striken suburbs. Nothing changes except where the rich people get to live - better locations, choice views, nice rapid trans.
Sorry, not 920. More like 100-200 sq ft. (ever *look* at a jam, and count the actual number of people involved? Doesn't fill up a doctor's waiting room).
OR, we could build rapid transit down the centers of the expressway and siphon off all the people trying to occupy 960 square feet at x mph all by their lonesome. And like the roadways themselves, free rides. Open, non-restricted boarding stations that don't look like a prison intake chute - no choke points, no railings, and walls to prevent people from falling on the the tracks (Elevators shaft opeinings have doors. Why don't trains tracks?)
The problem with roadways is cars. Too many cars. The system barely works, and will never be "fixed".
But that would involve rich/richer white middle/upper class people riding with the Morlocks. Enter the Musk's Hyertube for them, I suppose. Train-cars on their own tracks flitting above the poors. Solving nothing for no one except the non-poors.
Sorry, this subject cranks me off. The solutions are simple, but classism and racism and bull headed stupidity and conservatism crush every solution but build-a-bigger-road.