You idiots also said that about TV's, music devices, homes etc...

No, they didn't.

But I'll say it right now: My house does not need to be on the Internet. My shoes do not need to be on the Internet.

Not this Internet, at least. Because every one of those connected "things" is going to require connecting to a web page to manage, and that web page is going to require you to create a profile, that is connected to your personal information. The Internet of Things is not designed for your benefit. Right now, in 2014, do you really need to be told that? Have you not noticed anything happening around you?

For a group of people who are supposed to be tech-savvy, a lot of techies really don't seem to get what the Internet is about. There is some fantasy from the 1980's that still seems to hang on in the minds of people. Maybe a fairy tale that is told from generation to generation. But it has nothing to do with the truth. That Internet we dreamed about decades ago never happened.

The techdirt article quotes this delicious excerpt:

From our perspective in the United Kingdom, if the behaviour which is currently criminal is to remain criminal and also capable of prosecution, we consider that it would be proportionate to require the operators of websites first to establish the identity of people opening accounts but that it is also proportionate to allow people thereafter to use websites using pseudonyms or anonymously. There is little point in criminalising certain behaviour and at the same time legitimately making that same behaviour impossible to detect. We recognise that this is a difficult question, especially as it relates to jurisdiction and enforcement.

I can't even say I really disagree with that reasoning. Can't you see how there are two completely different ways to reach a conclusion from that paragraph?

I don't understand why this has been modded as a troll. He took the words right out of my mouth.

My "things" don't need to be on the internet. I like the Internet being in a neat compartment where I can go when I want it. I don't want it following me around.

Seriously, what the fuck is so attractive, I mean, given that the Internet has become pretty much a combination of a low-rent shopping mall and the equivalent of having your boss, your government and your phone company looking up your ass every minute of the day, about an internet of things? Have people really gotten that bored with life? Can you really not live one single minute without the illusion that your measly existence matters one bit to the universe?

Can anyone be so dense as to not be able to see what this "internet of things" is really all about? And here's a hint: It's not about making your life better. For fuck's sake.

I'm sure someone's crunched the numbers and this makes sense on paper, but seriously? Porting to Itanium before x86? I know HP wants to prop up its teensy niche CPU server line, but I just can't see how to justify that. Who's going to migrate software from old VMS systems to a new one on very highly vendor-locked hardware? It seems like anything likely to ever be updated before the heat death of the universe would probably have made the jump to Linux-on-x86 years ago.

This is a very US-typical way of thinking.

In the UK, it's more of a "where is the harm" approach. If there is more perceived harm in the exercise of said speech than in allowing it, it won't be allowed. This is more difficult to administer (it means someone, usually a judge) has to make a decision about this rather than it just being black and white. It does make life more pleasant for more people.

Having lived in the UK and the US for over a decade each, I have some perspective on this, and personally I think it's worth it, worshipping at the altar of "Free Speech At All Costs[*]" is an absolute, and I tend to distrust absolutes.

Simon.

[*] It's not a real absolute in the USA, you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre in the US either, for example, but it's a massively more common mindset of US people compared to UK people in my experience.

So if it's a representation of the community, why would you believe it has anything to do with affirmative action? The "point" of the GPP was that black people are "takin' ar jerbs".

I?

I work in his factory.

Yep. Their Code of Ethics says:

1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent.

Violation of copyrights, patents, trade secrets and the terms of license agreements is prohibited by law in most circumstances. Even when software is not so protected, such violations are contrary to professional behavior. Copies of software should be made only with proper authorization. Unauthorized duplication of materials must not be condoned.

I don't pirate software. I pay for the stuff I use when required. However, I damn sure don't respect software patents or nebulous "terms of license agreement" EULA bullshit. I'll honor them as mandated by law to keep me and my employer out of trouble (although every programmer reading this has probably violated 3 stupid patents today in the course of their job). And while the RIAA doesn't "authorize" me to rip CDs I've bought, I'm legally entitled to do so and will at my convenience.

I think my views are pretty mainstream among programmers. If the ACM wants me to join, they need to remove the requirements for me to worship pro-corporate, anti-citizen, rent-seeking behavior. I can't ethically consent to support their unethical Code of Ethics.

Once it was a hallmark of wealth to be fat. Today, it's kinda the opposite. Times change.

And while letting a professional handle a job you could only do worse may be a wise decision, I happen to have met a lot of "professionals" who only meet the "I do it for money" definition thereof...

Just one? Ok: Cell phone ring tones.

Oh, I dunno; I've seen any number of sites similar to this one, whose information is mirrored at zillions of locations on the web, including many outside the US. There are historical and cultural reasons for including the symbols at code points 534D and 5350 in Unicode, and I doubt that anyone has ever been prosecuted for installing full Unicode charsets or lookup software on their web sites.

I haven't looked for such pages on French sites, but I'd be surprised if they don't exist (with the text in French rather than English), and I'd also be surprised if the French government has tried to suppress such character codes in the Uncode lookups.

It's possible that such things has happened and I just haven't read about them. Does anyone know of cases of official harrassment for including pages like the above on a web site? For example, has any Islamic or other religious government ever harrassed people for allowing the U+271D char code on a web page?

(And yes, I do have a couple of experimental dictionaries on my own web sites, including one dealing with Chinese characters which includes an entry for the swastika characters. Nobody has even suggested that these glyphs shouldn't be there. Possibly it's because nobody has ever looked at my dictionaries, but still ... ;-)

That's the kind of marketing I can go for. Less so the search engine crippling, but being recommended by people using it (and not getting paid for recommending stuff).

By today's standard, you're rich. So am I, actually. When I look around me and consider how well I'm off compared to others...

I can survive on one income. I also like my job and have the luxury to even choose where I want to work at, and where I simply refuse to work. I live in a rather large apartment (mostly because I couldn't find another one in the area where I CHOSE to live in).

That's luxury today for most people. Having a CHOICE.

You really don't notice how condescending and patronizing you sound? Really?