this is becoming like the free market of anonymity software! competition means our identities win. the more rocks to over turn, the more administrative overhead is required, and the better the systems the more secure our private communications become. Security through obscurity isn't true security, but it sure helps delay the overlords when everything is obfuscated across multiple channels... you know those modern police radios, jumping channels at pre-set algorithms, encrypting across them all when possible... can you imagine something that uses all of these secure networks to randomly select paths to endpoints and dynamically adjusts to a new secure network as needed... good luck Department of Homeland Spying

I would be pretty freaked out to see people's faces. Some people have not been blessed in that way and I prefer them on their phone looking away so I can keep my lunch down. I think there are a few genres of social sites based on how a user can use them: user to user or user to group direct communication (akin to talking face to face), broadcast networking (more like terrestrial radio, you send info out and people may tune in), and stalking (whether familial research or otherwise, like a background check that you can do for free on persons of interest based on how and what they have made available) I don't know/care how most people will/do accomplish this, but for me, Google's product line covers all needs, but no one app cuts it.

echo 'hello world'

agreed. Chrome is my favorite second browser when my Firefox session needs to be isolated. Also the security holes is chrome OS are significant due to its low customizations and the fact that most users must compile their own release for a full fledged terminal. One well executed exploit could potentially render many machines compromised. If the Os gets it functionality from the web (and chromium gets widely adopted) I still won't use it out of concern for man-in-middle attacks

An iceweasel is the opposite of a firefox

good point - churches rob us blind

constitutionally, the rights for cyber command-type operations are reserved to the states or the people. so if you want to hack a known bad site, you would be required to comply with state law, but the interesting thing would arise from this: if it wasn't the federal govt's job to do this cyber-protectionism (which the constitution clearly states is not the role of the federal govt) then who would prosecute someone for hacking a known bad site? imagine this scenario: i hack a terrorist message board and bring it down permanently someone from the terrorist organization hires a lawyer and presses charges against me in my home state i choose to have a jury at my trial now rather than it being a federal responsibility to say "he hacked something he will go to jail regardless of motivation or the facts" my fate lies in the hands of a jury of peers, who after examining my motives (it was a terrorist group, not protected by the first amendment) and the harm done (terrorists become unable to pass information at the same level of ease) they can choose whether i was breaking law or taking it into my own hands. in order for the system i am speaking of to function successfully, a fundamental change in what the role of government IS would be necessary. if we want to be strung along and victim to the DMCA provisions, then we dont have to do a damn thing. if we want real change and freedom we are required to take back the inalienable rights that the DMCA has alienated. when the govt is looking out for us we all lose, i know plenty of people who could for less money do more than what the vague answers of general lord imply that can be done.