Agree. The moon's dust problem alone makes it problematic. I'd argue for L4 or L5 before the moon. There's still some dust at L4 & L5, but the sheer amount of it is much lower, and the gravity well to get there (and leave again) is much lower. It's not as inpsiring to say "we're on L4!", but it's also a first-person-gets-it kinda situation...you can have multiple moon bases, but really only one at L4 or L5.
The difference, which the summary alludes to, but doesn't call out, is that it's very typical for book contracts to contain a clause that reverts all copyrights back to the author after the book falls out of print for some period of time. Music contracts very rarely have that. Music contracts may or may not have covered the right to distribute the works digitally, but the music publishers still have *some* rights to old works, where the book publishers will have none.
It's not quite that simple. The GP post is correct that Cogent has a horrible reputation in the industry. Here's a synopsis of the most common Cogent dispute:
1) User in New York on ISP A requests data from Server in San Francisco on Cogent.
2) ISP A and Cogent interconnect in San Francisco and New York.
3) ISP A wants Cogent to carry the traffic to New York and drop it onto the ISP's network as close a possible to the customer (cold-potato routing), Cogent wants it off their network as soon as possible so they drop it onto the ISP A San Francisco interconnect (hot potato routing).
The question boils down to: which one of them is going to have to build a bigger national backbone to handle the extra traffic from the user in New York? Neither one wants to, and wants to force the other one to do it.
As to why ISPs are not blacklisting Cogent: they are. That's what all these bandwidth problems with Netflix are about: ISPs are playing chicken with Cogent, trying to force Cogent's customers to bully them into upgrading their network. ISPs aren't limiting Netflix: they're refusing to upgrade interconnects with Cogent until Cogent starts using cold-potato routing.
In this case, one of Cogent's customers blinked before Cogent did, and side-stepped the problem.
now? Let's find out:
Star Trek was "serious scifi"? Since when?
The original series had hot babes in filmy, barely-there outfits and paper-thin allegories about the cold war, but very little science. The next generation had morality plays, and tried (and failed) to do science by changing of the polarization of the deflector dish (or whatever "insert sciency bit here" they did that week). The others I didn't bother to watch (though I hear there's an episode where a character is "evolved" into a lizard and then back again.....really?).
Star Trek has always been terrible at the "serious" sci-fi. It's just terrible at serious scifi in a very different way than Star Wars is.
If you run an ISP and still don't understand that you're not the interesting part of the internet, then you have never understood your place on the 'net. ISPs exist for one reason, and one reason only: to allow people to access content. Period. The "Economic Balance" isn't "tipping towards content companies"...the content companies *are* *the* *things* *your* *customers* *want*. The only thing they want from you is to get to those companies (or each other). You are a conduit, a tube, even. Nothing more.
The regulations prohibit ISPs from charging more when content providers waste bandwidth
If your users want the traffic, then the content providers aren't "wasting" it...your customers (who are already paying you for those bits, I should point out) are using what they've paid for. Saying that content providers are wasting bandwidth is basically complaining that your users are actually *using* what you sold them...which is really not a winning argument.
Spam was and still is an enormous economic incentive to replace SMTP....and yet, after a decade of avalanches of spam, we haven't replaced SMTP with something that addresses any of the aspects of SMTP that permit spam to happen. This situation isn't even on the same order of magnitude of economic burden as spam is every single day. So, yes, the current situation *economically* is exactly like it was the last decade: we're paying for the design decisions of SMTP, and will continue to do so until something shinier comes along that people move to. That migration will happen slowly, over years, and SMTP will slowly wither away as the migration happens.
I'm even hearing rumors about replacing SMTP altogether with a more secure protocol.
There have been "rumors" and "proposals" to replace SMTP for almost a decade. It'll never happen. SMTP will die slowly, the same way NNTP is slowly dying. And that will only happen when there's a way to communicate that surpasses it. Web discussion boards basically killed NNTP. I don't think there's anything out there yet to kill SMTP.
Also, encrypting your mail misses the point. Groups like the NSA can still do traffic analysis on the SMTP envelope to know who you're talking with even without reading the contents of the email. The fact that you're in regular communication with a "target" is enough to make you interesting. If the "target" is subject to an full-on investigation (not the browsing that they appear to be doing), then being in regular contact with that target, would be sufficient grounds to apply for (and probably get) a court order to put a keylogger put on your machine.
Expect a lot of wailing and gnashing-of-teeth from the government, proposals to make this or that protocol "illegal" or to require government backdoor access, but in the end it will come down to simple economics.
There won't be much public wailing...they've got the laws they need. Just like what happened with Lavabit, they don't need to ban anything anymore, they'll just show up at any provider & say "give us all of the data you have on person . If you don't have any, start collecting it. Now."
Also, moving data out of the US (to Germany, for example), just means that the NSA has to ask the local spy agency (like the BND in germany) for the information. The Western governmental spy agencies seem to have no problem providing it. In fact, the NSA spying on data overseas would be *less* unconstitutional than what they're doing now....they'd love that.
Face it, the only way forward is something like freenet. The problem is, freenet withered on the vine.
While I find the idea interesting, I'm annoyed at the fact that it's useless without WigWam's cloud service. I've been burned too many times already, so I'm not particularly willing to build a complex home automation setup just to have the whole thing turned to a set of bricks because WigWam got bought by Yahoo (who seem to shut down every startup they buy), or just ran out of money.
What I don't get is why Snowden chose to go public with his identity when and in the manner that he did. If his aim was to expose the massive levels of surveillance that are going on, regardless of whether or not most educated people suspected as much, then why turn it into a media circus centred on the latest episode of "Where's Edward?" instead of allowing the press to focus on the core issue?
One presumes because he knew (working for a spy agency and all) that they'd find him eventually, and going *very* public first makes it harder to quietly arrest & try him.
1. (Law) a person charged with and convicted of crime
2. a person who commits crimes for a living
Until he's charged and convicted, he's not a criminal.
I think both stats could be right: people are buying them, and then wiping them to install something useful. It's not the chromebook that's failing...it's chromeOS that people don't want.
Thirded...installing chrUbuntu takes it from a google-leashed mostly-useless toy into a really reasonable, cheap minilaptop. I'm quite happy with mine...as long as it's running linux, not chromeOS.
That list is just companies that trade in financial information (credit scores, loan companies, etc). Notice that google doesn't show up in that list at all, but google *definitely* has information about me (whether I like it or not). So, your list is woefully incomplete. I suspect the full list of companies that collect personal information doesn't exist. That's kinda my point. Is the tacit expectation of this law that people will have to find out (somehow...) which companies *might* have information on them, and then blanket-mail all of them demanding to see their info? That isn't as big a step forward as one might think.