Once the internet became a thing regulated by government as opposed to technologists, it was lost. The intangible reality of it was lost, and now you can steal things off of the internet...even though we the owners and thieves know this is a false economy, at the end of the tunnel there is real money. So now the wrong people have taken interest and subsequently control. A new unregulated internet has to be created which is something more than a layer of encryption laid over the original. We've fucked this one up completely and all of the wrong people control something they will never understand but simply want things from. Now that that we know idiots will take over the internet, can't we start think about an even better system?
Isn't it odd how the US government seems to openly and willfully emulate all of the hacks and cracks it deems to be illegal? Each branch has an agenda, often not in the interest or to the benefit of the people of the US...and each never has to be answerable. Perfectly innocent exploration and discovery is now a criminal act. I guess it's like killing a person, or a large group of people. You can't do it, unless you're killing for the government. Then it's not only okay, but heroic. I shouldn't pick on the US, many governments are ran this way. I just don't like my government exhibiting this hypocrisy. It's a matter of, if they'll do it to someone else...they'll do it to you as well. Also, who's Jeremy Hammond?
I remember seeing the precursor to this question asked many years ago on Slashdot; "Should governments be allowed to regulate the internet?" and the resounding answer was, "No, that will break the internet." And here we are, asking the same fundamental question over again...but this time we're asking
:Should corporate interests control the internet? The answer is: No. No fucking way.
So...the next question is; "How do we recreate the internet in its previous form?" It's a very nice thing we had that's been somewhat ruined. I intuitively suspect that with all of the tech available we can abandon the higher levels of the OSI and fork off to a safer place where people are free to say whatever they want to, post anything, express themselves freely without fear of imprisonment. I know bad people with terrible agendas might love such a place...but perhaps we can keep it out of their reach through technology. Or let them on it...because everything is equal....the ethical questions are almost a quagmire. But...do you feel your internet is safer than it was 20 years ago? I don't.
Because everyone knows the only way to beat discrimination is by discriminating.
So, we are expected to believe that all government email resides on individual workstations, as opposed to a centralized server that gets backed up reguarly? That's simply absurd.
It's going to be someone lazy. Why not an Australian? What are you? Prejudiced?
The author seems to be assuming that the internet is not already regulated by governments. Even though the technology has improved, the idea of anonymously and freely exploring this new frontier can only be achieved by circumventing government policies enacted a decade ago. I remember the question "Should governments regulate the internet?" was met with a resounding "No!" even as it was being implemented. I think the topic is about 12 years too late.
Of course once they license this animal, it would be to their shareholders benefit to see wild salmon perish so everytime someone buys or sells salmon, they get to tag on their licensing fee. It also opens the doors for the acceptance of more infertile animals guaranteed to die off in the name of profit. Sustained extinction. A truly sustainable Salmon farm would be considerably more sound for humanity, but not as profitable for the license holders.
I intuit that this is simply a SQUID server with a custom downloaded blacklist. If not...it could be...and you wouldn't have to pay for it. But yeah, hook this up and I'm sure it will have no negative effects or collate data then sell it to retailers. That's not intuition though...it's sardonicism...I think. Maybe just sarcasm. Certainly cynicism.
Saying 'Let's fuck.' could be complimentary and appropriate to one person in one instance, and offensive or even menacing in another. You shouldn't, for instance, use this phrase in most job interviews. If you're the type of person who has to learn this the hard way, so be it. We must hold onto these diminishing rights, stripped away by nanny state laws. Trolls are a symptom of much larger issues. They don't exist because of the internet. It is the site moderator who should decide how to deal with them, and isn't in the pervue of any government. It is a terrible mistake to allow any government to dictate taste.
I think the idea is that the user will have the same experience on any device, and in the background available sub menus have more classic device specific apps and controls. e.g. on a PC you can still bring up a command line or control panel. The deskop menu is the same though whatever device you use, and since they require a Microsoft account you also have access to the same data. Of course, in the interest of supporting so many devices and user scenarios most people end up with a great deal of processes and applications they don't need. This is where Apple has traditionally excelled. They control the hardware, and are able to streamline their kernel and drivers for a much smaller subset of devices which are optimized for their OS. Microsoft is taking advantage of the cloud market cupertino has created and gotten people used to. Of course, there's no real need for this in the desktop market. Windows 7 is fine, but only recently ready to be put into a production environment where a variety of applications are in play. Windows XP is where the inertia of the business place still lies. Microsoft is trying to drag us along and get us to be subscribers, generating yearly and monthly revenue streams so that we won't wait to upgrade our OS until we need to. They will lock us out if we don't. e.g. XBOX 360.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance -Robert M. Pirsig -may help some of the metaphysical issues. Neuromancer -William S Gibson -may wipe off some of the cyber-funk. Read an old Computer Technician's Handbook by Art Margolis -might bring you back to the fundamentals. Tao Te Ching - The Way of Life -revisit the metaphysical aspects again Then build a speaker box or repair a small engine. There's nothing like visceral experience to get you back in the groove. good luck...
If I wanted to blow something important up, or take down a web site, I would make absolutely sure that the prosess was untraceable as possible. Average people use the intenet and by and large, they have no plans to perform terrorists acts. If they do, they don't post these plans to their facebook accounts. I would like to just state this now: If I were planning any sort of cyber terrorism, real terrorism, you will not find any markers on my social networking accounts. You could only possibly discover such info by finding and decoding my encrypted data. Since I no longer own a Blackberry...my highest level of encryption is Exchange through my iPhone. It's an idiotic waste of resources to search through unencrypted data. You should focus on the things people are trying to hide. Because you can't, you're wasting resources in the effort to scare the norms. They're already afraid. You need to scare the people who send data in a subterfuge fashion by letting them know you can now track them. If I have enough money or authority, I can suck all the data I want from data mining services. No one says anything important there.
I remember thinking when Bush was elected that I had to get out of the states before my freedoms were systematically ripped away. I didn't realize when I came to Australia just how much farther the process had already gotten here. They've effectively stifled protest and dissention and now the people are more or less owned by the government. When people started giving up their rights in the interest of protecting everyone, the personal choices taken away from them have increased manifold. I'd like to take my bicycle to the store without wearing a helmet. That's $100.00 fine. Ownership is control. Even when you own something here, the government controls it. All that being said, I would much rather deal with an Australian policeman than a US policeman. It's unlikely you'll be unfairly charged, or treated badly. I guess the nanny approach is nicer than the militant approach. The results though are insidious, however they are implemented.
It seems obvious to me that Windows hate is designed to take advantage of the app paradigm that Apple has implemented so well, Android, RIM, and Nokia has tried to replicate, and that people are starting to accept. They are also embracing The ever ethereal Cloud. You may not be able to bring up a command prompt or control panel on your phone, but you can see the same desktop and background and access much of the same data from any device by default. Like ME and Vista, they want their users to play in their little sandbox. They may potentially upset Facecrook as data mining king, since they require you to create or use an existing MSN/Hotmail account which often has a great deal of information about you. I don't think they're going to allow the on premises control needed in a SMB/Enterprise environment while allowing for a linear guided MS controlled user experience with any eficacy. They'll probably need to release another product extending XP/Win7/Server2008 tech. All of the bloat and ineffeciency and unused functionality lurking there in wait doesn't point to a good user experience. They're making software for themselves now.