No, client-side Tor only makes outgoing connections to relays. If you configure it as a relay it also passes traffic, but always encrypted so it can't be linked to any particular circuit elsewhere at any other node. Legal hazard for Tor node operators is only an issue for exit nodes, unless things get so bad that cryptography itself is targeted.
(Disclosure: I am a Tor developer)
On the opposite end she could be a geek girl herself and know even "better" jokes than the guys.
Just because she knows how to respond doesn't mean she should have to. Shockingly, not everyone enjoys the way groups of straight men always seem to set up a status hierarchy expressed through 'harmless' jokes. I've even (*gasp!*) heard a few guys complain about it now and then.
Send in a resume claiming to be BloodNinja ?
Whenever someone says 'cyber' unironically, just think of it as shorthand for "I'm a blithering nitwit and you should ignore anything I say from here on."
One IP or AS number is just like another, so all you need is a simple administrative body to make sure two people don't try to use the same one.
Yeah, true with current or foreseeable future protocols. Not necessarily impossible to avoid, though - what if networks were addressed by public keys in a large sparse space, and you could just randomly generate them when needed?
That's a source of endless disputes, and so long as those domains remain a source of substantial income that will be the case. So a body is needed to resolve them.
You're presuming I recognize the legitimacy of intellectual property there, I think. I do not, and see no reason to object to "whoever claims it first owns it".
On the other hand, DNS is probably the most administratively problematic protocol around due to the need for someone to run the root zone. That one would sure be nice to find a workaround for....
Ideally, the Internet would be run by a meritocratic UN group,
No. Ideally it wouldn't be 'run' at all.
"But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?"
