3D geometries have serious issues with line saturation and heat dissipation. This is because of thermal noise, and the increased voltage needed to overcome it. (which in turn, creates more heat.)
We are already at the point where high performance RAM chips need heat spreaders, and that is with 2D chip geometries that can eliminate heat reasonably efficiently.
When you start stacking multiple silicon fab layers together, heat builds up in the layers, requiring more voltage to overcome thermal noise, which produces more heat...... You get the idea.
Without separating the layers with some kind of highly thermally conductive intermediate to pipe the heat out, the insides of the chips become little easy bake ovens, and estimated service life drops radically, as does performance metrics.
I could see them going 2 levels deep in the geometry, with a special package with heat spreaders on both sides (of the package itself that is- not the DIMM) or something crazy like that-- but I really can't see a big "solid 3D block" of silicon getting plugged anywhere. IF such a technology were to come into being, it would need to be made from something that is damned near to being a room temperature superconductor to keep from being unreliable/a fire hazard from thermal noise.
Alternatively, it could be done in a photonic computing approach, using optical transistors and optical interconnects... that would solve the heat problem too, but would make servicing the system substantially more difficult.
But what prevents would-be vandals from serrupticiously "Laying down" the 3 wise men in the snow, covering them up, and then placing a motion activated dancing santa with a strap on, and two yard gnomes in their place?
(Bonus, "replace" Joseph with a white lawn jockey. [gotta be PC, afterall.])
I suppose the camera would be a deturrant, but the enterprising geek could still deploy a portable EMI/EMP generator from the back of the panel van they use to perform the vandalism with. (You can get plans on the internet.)
Other amusing vandalism ideas (non-inclusive):
Put obviously fake dynamite bandoliers on all the male nativity characters. (Bonus if you put a burkha robe on Mary) Put a fake beard on Mary. (A santa beard is acceptable, but a dark black one is better due to increased visibility) Put suet balls in strategic locations so the indemic pidgeon population does the defacement for you Make an FSM snowman that totally obstructs the view of the nativity scene from the road. Put pink flamingos in the scene, then put brightly colored hawaiian shirts and hoola skirts on everyone. Wrap all the nativity figures up in toilet paper like mummies Load an electric paint sprayer with water and green food coloring; Spray "We accept cash and credit", "Salvation at LOW LOW PRICES!" on the snow of the church's lawn
etc, etc.
Stealing the nativity characters is boring in comparison to the many MANY different ways you could fuck with a church this time of year!
But ONLY if slot B gives consent for penetration by tab A, and then ONLY if the tab is well covered by the rubber tab protector, AND if tab A is not grossly oversized for slot B, And certainly not if Tab A has been previously inserted into slot C without tab A's knowing about it, regardless of the use of the rubber tab protector's employment.
Otherwise that is NON CONSENSUAL furniture assembly!
Part of the problems I have when dealing with managerial levels higher up then my own, is that there is ever increasing levels of abstraction. Granted, this is necessary for them to do their jobs.
The problem is that you end up with some person who has a brilliant, but nebulous, idea. They then try to seek out people that could help them implement it (Er... Implement it for them, because they don't know how.)
For a totally made up example:
Say I work for a game development company, that is trying to cook up the next big RPG to kill WoW.
The ideas person says they want a fully customizable world, all the way down to dirt (he even gives a specific example of building a sand castle at the beach.) and that he wants users to (at least be able to) generate all of the world's higher level content, including enchantments, etc--
I tell him that we might be able to implement deformable dirt like he wants using voxels, but that doing so would tax most user's systems to the point of liquefying the CPUs and GPUs inside, should lots of people decide that playing at the beach would be fun today.
I also point out that full user-content generation is a dangerous kettle of fish, because it opens the door wide to copyright violations, and the potential for people to crash our servers purposefully with malicious content uploads.
He then says "Well, why dont we just sandbox and monitor all community code contributions, and halt when we detect a problem?"
"That's the halting problem" I reply-- "Computer scientists have shown that this can only be done with a system that is fundamentally more powerful than the system that it is analyzing, and doing so would nuke our server farm. We could implement a sanitized language, or implement a proprietary model format I suppose [to try to combat direct copying and malicious code generation], but that would limit the complexity and variety of potential community contributions."
"So you are saying it can't be done?" He asks.
"Not on the level you are implying." I reply.
"It cant be done, or that you can't do it?" he asks.
"Both- Not on the level you are implying anyway."
"That's your opinion, I am sure I can find somebody who can." he smugly asserts-- and walks off.
Next week I get told I am taken off the project for my "bad attitude"
I leave that game company, and watch from a distance as the unrealistic ideas person burns through talented developers like a kid with a box of matches, and watch as his 'grand visionary idea' goes nowhere fast and wastes huge amounts of the company's money before it finally gets scrapped as a failure, or finally accepts some lesser implementation that doesnt do half the things the ideas person wanted. (and is STILL sour about, having failed to learn his lesson.)
Granted, it is MUCH better when the ideas person open admits their technological failings, and accepts that their grandiose idea is an abstract ideal which probably cannot be met, and is willing to work with others to resolve the issue-- (EG, accept that the halting problem is non-trivial, as per the above made up situation.) and is willing to work within the constraints of what his associates tell him is plausible or doable.
However, more often than not, ideas people treat their "idea" like directors treat their "Vision" of a movie script; As if it were a direct gift from God, and not open to debate from filthy underlings. Or, at the very least, that has been my experience when dealing with them.
I am one of those unusual people that is a little bit of both worlds; I can design new ideas and concepts, and can create "nice" 3D models with lots of complexity and originality, but I am not by any means a professional at that-- I can also string together a proof of concept code model that, of my own admission, is NOT release worthy, but is semi-functional. (damn ugly in most cases, since I make it as a proof of concept. It's like paper mache code.) As such, I get to see both sides of the coin, while being deleg
I do that already with my friends, saves all of us a buttload of money.
I do trivial computer repairs, one friend does trivial automotive repairs, etc. You just have to be very careful about not getting pimped out to their friends, by only offering this kind of thing to friends you can trust to only call you when they really need to.
Some people will think that they are doing you a favor by recommending you to their friends, but this is only true if you are getting paid.;) Trading favors without getting favors in return is a losing game, so you need to be frank and candid with your friends about that fact. If they are really your friends, they will understand.
1) The farmer is supposed to be upholding a kosher (or at least kosher-like) dietary practice. 2) Is raising the pigs in secret. 3) Has forbidden ANYONE but specially selected farm hands to go near the barn. 4) swears that there is no porcine meat at all in the food he brings to the bar-mitsvah.
What wikileaks has done is shown that
1) The farmer is a hypocritical liar. 2) Is raising pigs in secret, (See look, here's a pig he raised!) 3) Has snuck into the barn, threw open the doors, and chased some pigs out into the countryside for everyone to see 4) Has shown that there is INDEED pork in those "kosher" sausages he makes for parties.
By asking the government to assist in redacting documents, as fitted to the above adjusted analogy, it is like the person who has caught him red-handed asking whom has eaten his pork products contrary to their religious dietary obligations, so that they can avoid being publicly ousted, and punished, in the interests of maintaining order in the village.
By refusing to help redact, in both circumstances, the guilty party that has been caught red handed is only showing how much of a total ass they are, and by further claiming that the disclosure would imperil these same people that the investigator wanted to protect enough to ask to help conceal their identities,as a means of attack against the investigator, is an act of pure and shameless hypocrisy.
To continue the analogy, claiming "most of the animals that the investigator chased out of the barn are not pigs, so they shouldn't have been chased out" (EG, "most of the diplomatic cables that were released are nothing interesting, or clandestine, and shouldn't have been leaked") totally ignores the fact that there were indeed pigs in the herd of animals that were chased out of the barn. It's a logical fallacy because it makes a false conclusion: Because some of the animals that were chased out were not pigs, the investigator should not have chased out the animals in the barn." It discounts that the only way for the investigator to prove that the barn had pigs in it, was to chase all the animals out into the open for the village to see. Mundane farm animals are what you would expect to find if all is well; Finding the pigs however, is not. The fact that there were pigs in the barn is what is most important; not weather or not the hypocrite farmer is going to have a hard time now that his milk cow and goats are out too.
I agree, but analyzing what is being run in the sandbox would be nice also, since it could help detect escalation and jailbreak attempts from the sandboxed execution.
Sandboxing is a great idea, but actively looking at the executed code to catch and halt escalations would be good too. You just need to be frugal and smart in your analysis methods so you dont slow down the javascript's execution to a snail's pace.
Something simple like validating heap allocations to ensure an overflow doesnt happen, or doing a quick hash check against the sandbox memory for known binary signatures for escalation payloads (The exploit causes a jump in execution, but there must be binary code ready to jump to for the escalation to work. You look for this binary blob with a quick hash check against the sandbox's memory before starting execution.) might be good approaches to catch the most common kinds of attack that would be used.
Granted, being too nosey about what the sandbox is doing opens up the potential for new escalation paths, (What happens if the monitor detects too many exploit packages in the execution stream to properly report? Can you get the monitor itself to cause the escalation by feeding it certain inputs? etc.) so the less it checks the specifics of execution, the better.
There is a fundemental flaw in your logic; Non-sentient things can be fooled.
For instance, fingerprint scanners can be fooled with gummy bears.
Thus, illusions exist for deterministically driven automata, just as much as they exist for non-deterministic "conciousnesses".
So, the two points you rais are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for a human to be fooled into thinking they are something other than a fully deterministic machine running genetically derived fuzzy logic software, via the illusion of conciousness and free will.
With the right software, you can make a computer assert the same drivel; the only real difference is that humans are substantially more complex than current computers, and run more convoluted software.
Thus your second point SHOULD be:
"The nature of illusion is that it needs Something to fool."
This kind of debate becomes even more amusing when you couple it with some of the more interesting astrophysics thought experiments, like the many worlds hypothesis, because they imply that free will is an illusion, and is merely the natural consequence of the full expansion of the universe's probability function.
I am sure there MUST be some kind of compliance issues for high-energy physics that would prohibit irradiating CreationLand with evolution inducing neutronic radiation from the "Junior Scientist Home Fusion" attraction...
Nevermind the non-digital, ephemeral copies of content that one carries inside their brain after "Consuming" the content.
While some people have better memories than others, this inherent copying ability of the human brain renders the whole "Copy" nonsense absurd. "Distribution" would make more sense. It is impossible to consume any kind of media without creating a neurological copy, either in full or in part.
"DigitalJesus.com" would be better-- (bonus if you can score a.org)
You could spin it this way: "Jesus saves, both figuratively and litterally! Our digital savior preserves the digital heritage of our age, bringing the bread and fish of cultural diversity to the masses! All you have to do is accept!"
Then, Tag all the media files passed through the service as "Saved by Jesus, and freed from the clutches of evil" in the copyright section of the appropriate file headers.
Such a thing is SURE to infuriate a HUGE demographic in the extreme right. ROFL.
Tell lord Cthulu that current seven out of ten astrologers agree that it is not yet time for him to reawaken, and to take some damn sominex if he cant go back to sleep.
I suppose the first one could be overcome with some local CA blacklists. (why Mozilla accepts a chineese CA I dont know. Seems suicidal.)
The RST packet issue becomes difficult to address without implementing some kind of homebrew device to sit between your router and your private network, that does DPI to look for the RST signals and filter them, then do some creative ACK to make sure the sender didn't send a legitimate one. This would slow network access when ATT sends the abusive RST packets, but slow is better than unstable.
With modern linksys firmware hacks being available, such an approach could be implemented into the router itself. It would be an interesting thing for the router to automatically log and report on too.
Take the recent "seizures" of torrent sites by the US government; In order for the government to keep track of DNS entries that it has "Confiscated", it has to apply it to easily identifiable name servers. (In this case, something along the lines of "Seized.xxxx.NS") Since it would become an administrative nightmare to NOT use some form of naming convention for such "Blocked" sites, it should be fairly simple to resolve "Which" IP addresses and name servers to accept as entries/accept entries from.
If the two IPs match, Good for you.
If they dont, does one get resolved by a "blacklist placeholder" NS? If so, ignore that entry and use the redundant one.
If they dont, and neither points to a known placeholder, "ASK", allow the user to try both and then pick the appropriate one.
An alternative name registry service would do wonders to cripple the whole "internet censorship" bandwagon that has been going on recently. Blacklists? Rendered at the very least 2X as difficult to implement on a national scale, simply because the clients you are attempting to prevent from accessing content can reach that content by using the alternate name resolution service.
It would make measures like the Australian blacklist falderall all that much more difficult to actually pull off, and would render efforts like COICA similarly difficult.
In theory, it is a good idea to hold-- However, granting immortality to humans as they currently are, means extending that same thing to the ideas that humans hold, and feed to their children; Specifically, religious precepts and mores.
Pretty much all major world religions consider self-termination to be "evil"- as such, I would expect there to be very strong social outcry over it. (much like the outcry before Jack Kevorkian got put in jail. Building a suicide booth is no different ideologically than administering cyanide to old people that want to die.)
It becomes an issue not of what YOU want, or what you feel is best for yourself and your family-- but what your family feels is best for themselves; People HATE the idea of suicide, because it means people WILLINGLY leaving them behind-- people that claimed to have loved them. As such, I would expect the "Abandonment" issue to be highly persistent, even in an immortal population demographic. As such, the suicide booths would be viewed distastefully, rather than as the source of liberty.
That might change after several thousand years of human "existence", but it would be a long-standing blemish on human sentimentality before then.
The point was any population growth, coupled with immortality, will ultimately result a 100% probability of overpopulation 'eventually.'
You are just quibbling over how quickly it would happen.
Granted, this discounts other kinds of mortality; (car crashes, cancer, suicide booths, etc..) Unless these kinds of deaths are equal to or greater than total population growthrate, then the probability of the population disaster STILL approaches 1.
As that happens, if we were to bring in your utopian ideal of having AIs do everything for us, we will have the very very unfortunate situation where human life would be "cheap"-- I'd expect war to be very common.
Slashdot Mirror
3D geometries have serious issues with line saturation and heat dissipation. This is because of thermal noise, and the increased voltage needed to overcome it. (which in turn, creates more heat.)
We are already at the point where high performance RAM chips need heat spreaders, and that is with 2D chip geometries that can eliminate heat reasonably efficiently.
When you start stacking multiple silicon fab layers together, heat builds up in the layers, requiring more voltage to overcome thermal noise, which produces more heat...... You get the idea.
Without separating the layers with some kind of highly thermally conductive intermediate to pipe the heat out, the insides of the chips become little easy bake ovens, and estimated service life drops radically, as does performance metrics.
I could see them going 2 levels deep in the geometry, with a special package with heat spreaders on both sides (of the package itself that is- not the DIMM) or something crazy like that-- but I really can't see a big "solid 3D block" of silicon getting plugged anywhere. IF such a technology were to come into being, it would need to be made from something that is damned near to being a room temperature superconductor to keep from being unreliable/a fire hazard from thermal noise.
Alternatively, it could be done in a photonic computing approach, using optical transistors and optical interconnects... that would solve the heat problem too, but would make servicing the system substantially more difficult.
Feel free- The neighbor's dog does it all the time and I dont complain. Makes the grass greener.
(You, sir, are forgetting that I am a geek and almost never go outside anyway.)
But what prevents would-be vandals from serrupticiously "Laying down" the 3 wise men in the snow, covering them up, and then placing a motion activated dancing santa with a strap on, and two yard gnomes in their place?
(Bonus, "replace" Joseph with a white lawn jockey. [gotta be PC, afterall.])
I suppose the camera would be a deturrant, but the enterprising geek could still deploy a portable EMI/EMP generator from the back of the panel van they use to perform the vandalism with. (You can get plans on the internet.)
Other amusing vandalism ideas (non-inclusive):
Put obviously fake dynamite bandoliers on all the male nativity characters. (Bonus if you put a burkha robe on Mary)
Put a fake beard on Mary. (A santa beard is acceptable, but a dark black one is better due to increased visibility)
Put suet balls in strategic locations so the indemic pidgeon population does the defacement for you
Make an FSM snowman that totally obstructs the view of the nativity scene from the road.
Put pink flamingos in the scene, then put brightly colored hawaiian shirts and hoola skirts on everyone.
Wrap all the nativity figures up in toilet paper like mummies
Load an electric paint sprayer with water and green food coloring; Spray "We accept cash and credit", "Salvation at LOW LOW PRICES!" on the snow of the church's lawn
etc, etc.
Stealing the nativity characters is boring in comparison to the many MANY different ways you could fuck with a church this time of year!
Sadly, it's more probable that he will team up with the AC that constantly rails against "Niggers". (Gawd I hate that AC. He's such a douche.)
But ONLY if slot B gives consent for penetration by tab A, and then ONLY if the tab is well covered by the rubber tab protector, AND if tab A is not grossly oversized for slot B, And certainly not if Tab A has been previously inserted into slot C without tab A's knowing about it, regardless of the use of the rubber tab protector's employment.
Otherwise that is NON CONSENSUAL furniture assembly!
No, you smile at them, and ask if it was as good for them as it was for you.
On the way out, letcherously smile, wink at the person that was behind you in line, and declare to them:
"Man, you Gotta try it! This one's got the magic touch! Private room and everything!"
Bonus points if the person behind you in line is a frumpy 70+ year old woman.
Double score if she turns around and leaves before going through.
Part of the problems I have when dealing with managerial levels higher up then my own, is that there is ever increasing levels of abstraction. Granted, this is necessary for them to do their jobs.
The problem is that you end up with some person who has a brilliant, but nebulous, idea. They then try to seek out people that could help them implement it (Er... Implement it for them, because they don't know how.)
For a totally made up example:
Say I work for a game development company, that is trying to cook up the next big RPG to kill WoW.
The ideas person says they want a fully customizable world, all the way down to dirt (he even gives a specific example of building a sand castle at the beach.) and that he wants users to (at least be able to) generate all of the world's higher level content, including enchantments, etc--
I tell him that we might be able to implement deformable dirt like he wants using voxels, but that doing so would tax most user's systems to the point of liquefying the CPUs and GPUs inside, should lots of people decide that playing at the beach would be fun today.
I also point out that full user-content generation is a dangerous kettle of fish, because it opens the door wide to copyright violations, and the potential for people to crash our servers purposefully with malicious content uploads.
He then says "Well, why dont we just sandbox and monitor all community code contributions, and halt when we detect a problem?"
"That's the halting problem" I reply-- "Computer scientists have shown that this can only be done with a system that is fundamentally more powerful than the system that it is analyzing, and doing so would nuke our server farm. We could implement a sanitized language, or implement a proprietary model format I suppose [to try to combat direct copying and malicious code generation], but that would limit the complexity and variety of potential community contributions."
"So you are saying it can't be done?" He asks.
"Not on the level you are implying." I reply.
"It cant be done, or that you can't do it?" he asks.
"Both- Not on the level you are implying anyway."
"That's your opinion, I am sure I can find somebody who can." he smugly asserts-- and walks off.
Next week I get told I am taken off the project for my "bad attitude"
I leave that game company, and watch from a distance as the unrealistic ideas person burns through talented developers like a kid with a box of matches, and watch as his 'grand visionary idea' goes nowhere fast and wastes huge amounts of the company's money before it finally gets scrapped as a failure, or finally accepts some lesser implementation that doesnt do half the things the ideas person wanted. (and is STILL sour about, having failed to learn his lesson.)
Granted, it is MUCH better when the ideas person open admits their technological failings, and accepts that their grandiose idea is an abstract ideal which probably cannot be met, and is willing to work with others to resolve the issue-- (EG, accept that the halting problem is non-trivial, as per the above made up situation.) and is willing to work within the constraints of what his associates tell him is plausible or doable.
However, more often than not, ideas people treat their "idea" like directors treat their "Vision" of a movie script; As if it were a direct gift from God, and not open to debate from filthy underlings. Or, at the very least, that has been my experience when dealing with them.
I am one of those unusual people that is a little bit of both worlds; I can design new ideas and concepts, and can create "nice" 3D models with lots of complexity and originality, but I am not by any means a professional at that-- I can also string together a proof of concept code model that, of my own admission, is NOT release worthy, but is semi-functional. (damn ugly in most cases, since I make it as a proof of concept. It's like paper mache code.) As such, I get to see both sides of the coin, while being deleg
I do that already with my friends, saves all of us a buttload of money.
I do trivial computer repairs, one friend does trivial automotive repairs, etc. You just have to be very careful about not getting pimped out to their friends, by only offering this kind of thing to friends you can trust to only call you when they really need to.
Some people will think that they are doing you a favor by recommending you to their friends, but this is only true if you are getting paid. ;) Trading favors without getting favors in return is a losing game, so you need to be frank and candid with your friends about that fact. If they are really your friends, they will understand.
No, that's an H1B visa worker. The topic at hand is the "Offshored" worker-- EG, "Mahamed-Udi" from smell technical support.
In this case, the analogy has other twists to it.
1) The farmer is supposed to be upholding a kosher (or at least kosher-like) dietary practice.
2) Is raising the pigs in secret.
3) Has forbidden ANYONE but specially selected farm hands to go near the barn.
4) swears that there is no porcine meat at all in the food he brings to the bar-mitsvah.
What wikileaks has done is shown that
1) The farmer is a hypocritical liar.
2) Is raising pigs in secret, (See look, here's a pig he raised!)
3) Has snuck into the barn, threw open the doors, and chased some pigs out into the countryside for everyone to see
4) Has shown that there is INDEED pork in those "kosher" sausages he makes for parties.
By asking the government to assist in redacting documents, as fitted to the above adjusted analogy, it is like the person who has caught him red-handed asking whom has eaten his pork products contrary to their religious dietary obligations, so that they can avoid being publicly ousted, and punished, in the interests of maintaining order in the village.
By refusing to help redact, in both circumstances, the guilty party that has been caught red handed is only showing how much of a total ass they are, and by further claiming that the disclosure would imperil these same people that the investigator wanted to protect enough to ask to help conceal their identities,as a means of attack against the investigator, is an act of pure and shameless hypocrisy.
To continue the analogy, claiming "most of the animals that the investigator chased out of the barn are not pigs, so they shouldn't have been chased out" (EG, "most of the diplomatic cables that were released are nothing interesting, or clandestine, and shouldn't have been leaked") totally ignores the fact that there were indeed pigs in the herd of animals that were chased out of the barn. It's a logical fallacy because it makes a false conclusion: Because some of the animals that were chased out were not pigs, the investigator should not have chased out the animals in the barn." It discounts that the only way for the investigator to prove that the barn had pigs in it, was to chase all the animals out into the open for the village to see. Mundane farm animals are what you would expect to find if all is well; Finding the pigs however, is not. The fact that there were pigs in the barn is what is most important; not weather or not the hypocrite farmer is going to have a hard time now that his milk cow and goats are out too.
I agree, but analyzing what is being run in the sandbox would be nice also, since it could help detect escalation and jailbreak attempts from the sandboxed execution.
Sandboxing is a great idea, but actively looking at the executed code to catch and halt escalations would be good too. You just need to be frugal and smart in your analysis methods so you dont slow down the javascript's execution to a snail's pace.
Something simple like validating heap allocations to ensure an overflow doesnt happen, or doing a quick hash check against the sandbox memory for known binary signatures for escalation payloads (The exploit causes a jump in execution, but there must be binary code ready to jump to for the escalation to work. You look for this binary blob with a quick hash check against the sandbox's memory before starting execution.) might be good approaches to catch the most common kinds of attack that would be used.
Granted, being too nosey about what the sandbox is doing opens up the potential for new escalation paths, (What happens if the monitor detects too many exploit packages in the execution stream to properly report? Can you get the monitor itself to cause the escalation by feeding it certain inputs? etc.) so the less it checks the specifics of execution, the better.
There is a fundemental flaw in your logic; Non-sentient things can be fooled.
For instance, fingerprint scanners can be fooled with gummy bears.
Thus, illusions exist for deterministically driven automata, just as much as they exist for non-deterministic "conciousnesses".
So, the two points you rais are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for a human to be fooled into thinking they are something other than a fully deterministic machine running genetically derived fuzzy logic software, via the illusion of conciousness and free will.
With the right software, you can make a computer assert the same drivel; the only real difference is that humans are substantially more complex than current computers, and run more convoluted software.
Thus your second point SHOULD be:
"The nature of illusion is that it needs Something to fool."
This kind of debate becomes even more amusing when you couple it with some of the more interesting astrophysics thought experiments, like the many worlds hypothesis, because they imply that free will is an illusion, and is merely the natural consequence of the full expansion of the universe's probability function.
I am sure there MUST be some kind of compliance issues for high-energy physics that would prohibit irradiating CreationLand with evolution inducing neutronic radiation from the "Junior Scientist Home Fusion" attraction...
'DroidArm sounds cooler.
*Gag* [twitch] (foam)
I feel like I am trapped at a Quality Assurance meeting with an endless powerpoint presentation and no door!
Nevermind the non-digital, ephemeral copies of content that one carries inside their brain after "Consuming" the content.
While some people have better memories than others, this inherent copying ability of the human brain renders the whole "Copy" nonsense absurd. "Distribution" would make more sense. It is impossible to consume any kind of media without creating a neurological copy, either in full or in part.
"DigitalJesus.com" would be better-- (bonus if you can score a .org)
You could spin it this way: "Jesus saves, both figuratively and litterally! Our digital savior preserves the digital heritage of our age, bringing the bread and fish of cultural diversity to the masses! All you have to do is accept!"
Then, Tag all the media files passed through the service as "Saved by Jesus, and freed from the clutches of evil" in the copyright section of the appropriate file headers.
Such a thing is SURE to infuriate a HUGE demographic in the extreme right. ROFL.
No, "nice things" are what they try to sell us on, not what they sell to us.
The vast majority of items being hawked by spam artists are the cheapest of the cheap of imitations and knockoffs.
Tell lord Cthulu that current seven out of ten astrologers agree that it is not yet time for him to reawaken, and to take some damn sominex if he cant go back to sleep.
Easily enough resolved with a firm root-level policy:
Mirror ICANN, EXCEPT for blacklists.
The idea is a not-for-profit alternate root. Not a "For profit" alternate root.
I suppose the first one could be overcome with some local CA blacklists. (why Mozilla accepts a chineese CA I dont know. Seems suicidal.)
The RST packet issue becomes difficult to address without implementing some kind of homebrew device to sit between your router and your private network, that does DPI to look for the RST signals and filter them, then do some creative ACK to make sure the sender didn't send a legitimate one. This would slow network access when ATT sends the abusive RST packets, but slow is better than unstable.
With modern linksys firmware hacks being available, such an approach could be implemented into the router itself. It would be an interesting thing for the router to automatically log and report on too.
Take the recent "seizures" of torrent sites by the US government; In order for the government to keep track of DNS entries that it has "Confiscated", it has to apply it to easily identifiable name servers. (In this case, something along the lines of "Seized.xxxx.NS") Since it would become an administrative nightmare to NOT use some form of naming convention for such "Blocked" sites, it should be fairly simple to resolve "Which" IP addresses and name servers to accept as entries/accept entries from.
If the two IPs match, Good for you.
If they dont, does one get resolved by a "blacklist placeholder" NS? If so, ignore that entry and use the redundant one.
If they dont, and neither points to a known placeholder, "ASK", allow the user to try both and then pick the appropriate one.
An alternative name registry service would do wonders to cripple the whole "internet censorship" bandwagon that has been going on recently. Blacklists? Rendered at the very least 2X as difficult to implement on a national scale, simply because the clients you are attempting to prevent from accessing content can reach that content by using the alternate name resolution service.
It would make measures like the Australian blacklist falderall all that much more difficult to actually pull off, and would render efforts like COICA similarly difficult.
Do it. Do it now.
In theory, it is a good idea to hold-- However, granting immortality to humans as they currently are, means extending that same thing to the ideas that humans hold, and feed to their children; Specifically, religious precepts and mores.
Pretty much all major world religions consider self-termination to be "evil"- as such, I would expect there to be very strong social outcry over it. (much like the outcry before Jack Kevorkian got put in jail. Building a suicide booth is no different ideologically than administering cyanide to old people that want to die.)
It becomes an issue not of what YOU want, or what you feel is best for yourself and your family-- but what your family feels is best for themselves; People HATE the idea of suicide, because it means people WILLINGLY leaving them behind-- people that claimed to have loved them. As such, I would expect the "Abandonment" issue to be highly persistent, even in an immortal population demographic. As such, the suicide booths would be viewed distastefully, rather than as the source of liberty.
That might change after several thousand years of human "existence", but it would be a long-standing blemish on human sentimentality before then.
The point was any population growth, coupled with immortality, will ultimately result a 100% probability of overpopulation 'eventually.'
You are just quibbling over how quickly it would happen.
Granted, this discounts other kinds of mortality; (car crashes, cancer, suicide booths, etc..) Unless these kinds of deaths are equal to or greater than total population growthrate, then the probability of the population disaster STILL approaches 1.
As that happens, if we were to bring in your utopian ideal of having AIs do everything for us, we will have the very very unfortunate situation where human life would be "cheap"-- I'd expect war to be very common.