And I mean Suck. They suck the life out of America. They suck the life out of every individual that is forced to work an average of 10 years during their lifetime (based on around a 15% income tax and a 60 year lifespan) in the service not of themselves, but of the federal governement. That is at least 2 months every year working for what? What free people would choose to do that to themselves? And still the federal government can't pay the bills that they are writing...
Trillions of dollars in debts have been accumulating, yet we still play these stupid games. Oh it's the Dems fault... it's the Republicans. No, it's America's fault. America's fault for not seeing through the daily lies that our elected representatives now even seem to believe themselves. America's fault for believing the carpet baggers when they tell you they have all the answers to your daily struggles. America's fault for signing up for all those credit cards which you can never pay off. American's fault for their forgiveness, when the itinerant congressman or president tell you and themselves that the lies they told were better than the alternative. America's fault for not seeing through the scam of social security from the very beginning... It only works when the population is growing and most people don't live very long, still sound good to you?
Both parties have ceased representing the interests of citizens in the government, but instead try to banally represent the excesses of goverment back to us in patriotic terms.
Now we see all these restrictive laws being passed... and we wonder why? Because we have elected a generation of spinless whanabees. They are so used to believing their own lies, that when a big corporation goes to a congressman and says 'we need your laws to keep us in business', the congressman doesn't think 'is what they are asking consistent with an American value of freedom?'... no, they ask themselves whether the business is big enough to keep the coffers flowing.
With every iteration, laws become more restrictive more intrusive and more unintelligable. Until one day, noone can live a day of their lives without fear that somehow they are breaking some law and right and wrong are so far removed from the law that only your political connections or your subserviance will keep you out of harms way.
"4) Since there's no reason for them to need to send it out *not* through the ISP as a relay host, the majority of these users are spammers or just ignorant. In the first case, it's good to block them. In the second, maybe they will get a clue."
you simply just don't get it. some people don't want to shell out additional money for the right to use their own domain at home. Don't you think that small business' might want to try and save some money. This ain't 1999 after all.
As someone else pointed out ISPs won't relay non isp domain email as you suggest. And why should people be charged more for getting no additional service or bandwidth from an ISP.
This is what I call blackmail service. You give us more money and we won't break your legs or cripple your Internet connection.
Do you really think that an incoming only internet connection provides much value to people?? The internet is a two way stret, deal with it.
"I thought this was pretty much debunked a couple years ago?"
The article you reference talks about a particular scammer.... i mean entrepreneur... and his particular invention which would have brought endless bandwidth at light speed to power lines. The physics seemed a little screwy on that "invention", but this is just old fashioned sending a signal down a wire. So nothing new here in physics circles.
This has more to do with business and legal issues than new technology. Just happens that power companies already have big cables running to every home (right of way) and they are just trying to figure out an economical way to use them for telecom. Just as the cable companies did. Except the electrical distribution grid is not as easy to convert as the cable networks were.
"Code-Monkeys: these guys do exactly what they are thought to do: Grind out code. Usually not innovative, usually no technical achievement. Nevertheless, they'll get the job done especially if its something that they can base off other things."
I disagree. Most engineers of any specialty rely upon existing well understood designs which they might modify to fit a particular situation, but rarely ever venture very far from what they have been shown to work before. So it would seem that there is no difference between an engineer and a monkey who also bases his work closely on the work of others.
Seems the only rational basis for understanding a title is for litigious reasons. So someone who has met certain requirements and follows well understood practices is given legal cover.
If such a dastardly law came into effect I would argue that no device can conceal the orgination of a communication, because it is always the originiation of the communication. No more than a computer conceals the fact that the message really came from the keyboard, which first came from a person.
Unfortuneately, we all know that lawyers will selectively apply this law to just those things that the mega corporations don't like, such as internet sharing devices and home networks. But really it should be applied to all electronic or mechanical communication devices, since to be consistent they all conceal who the communication is coming from. So no more telephones, computers or cell phones either... just face to face communication is allowed from now on.
Sounds like we are going back to the good old days when people could go to jail for hooking up a modem to a phone line.
"Iraq probably is not all that population dense outside of Baghdad and Basra. CDMA really comes into its element when you are out in the countryside with few sites covering large expanses of land."
So if I understand what you are saying, CDMA is much better where there is nobody around? Hmmmm... sounds like a useful feature... oh wait a sec.
I agree with this statement, but it should be pointed out that all institutions or other artificial group entities are without morals. Morals are an individual human attribute.
One of my history professors promoted the idea that history is best understood as "actors pursuing values through institutions." So, it is the actors that pursue some sort of value, whether it me moral value or some sort of resource, and not the institution, which is a tool towards some end.
hey just change your email address every two years. I was getting so much junk email that I decided to change addresses. Just gave out the new email address to friends and haven't gotten on anyone's list yet.
Very simple solution.
Just to warn you, I'm applying for a patent, so if you change your email address to avoid spam you owe me $5.
The part about the file sharing debate that most of us take issue with is the blanket prior restraint of the means to copy a particular type of content, not whether it is legal or right to copy someone's creative work when they don't want you too.
Sometimes there really is a fire in a crowded theatre. Would you pass a law making it illegal to say so?
What is really the "regulation" that we are talking about?
It is the Federal government finding itself getting deeper and deeper into debt, and not regulating spectrum in the public trust, but rather selling it to the highest bidder. But Reed is taking a fundamental approach to say that spectrum is fundamentally more akin to speech, holding up a sign, or something like this which has a much higher threshold of regulation in legal circles... (ie you can't always shout fire in a crowded theatre, but mostly you can say whatever you want)
So, this discussion can only be seen properly in context when seen as a reaction against spectrum monopolies.
"Those great big transmitters permit the use of very dumb receivers with poor sensitivy. The very simplicity and asymmetry of broadcast provides tremendous economic and technical appeal, and I'd be amazed if it ever went away."
This sounds like the argument the phone company used to argue against allowing the Internet. Yes, computers cost a lot more than dumb phones, but people are willing to pay more for something that does more and especially for something that allows them to do more.
Phones haven't gone away, but allowing the internet has added greatly to our lives over the past ten years.
well, my understanding from 802.11b is that it will delay sending out a signal if it detects another signal being sent, so this "interference" may not be physical, but technological.
"Frankly, the 2.4GHz spectrum is a case in point of why regulation is needed."
What regulation would you think to impose?
Yes, interference does exist, but it should be understood as a problem with the receiver not being able to pick out the right information, but he is essentially correct that no information is destroyed with multiple broadcasts at the same frequency, so it should be possible to sort through the signal and figure out what you want. Yes this distinction in terms is made more for political reasons, but it coincides with the physical reality.
Also, If you think regulation is needed in the 2.4GHz spectrum, how do you account for the widespread adoption of wireless communications in an unregulated spectrum? Doesn't this reality force you to look at your political assumptions. Yes these devices have to be more clever when there are more simultaneous transmissions, but so do our brains when there are a lot of people talking in a room and we want to listen to just one.
I am not completely against regulating spectrum, it is obvious that some technologies are best left alone as they were originally designed. (am and fm radio for instance) But more and different ranges of spectrum should become unlicensed to make them available to intelligent devices which don't mind so much noise.
He is basically proposing the entire spectrum be unlicensed like visable light, and the spectrum used by WiFi devices and cordless phones. So we already have bandwidth with which we can see this theory in practice.
If transmissions carry identification about which source they are coming from, then why couldn't a reciever be able to descriminate the information?? That is all he is saying. Although, it would seem that we would still want to regulate the power output to some extent... so I would completely agree with him that spectrum should not be restricted by licensing, but power output from a point source should still be.
Just curious, but would you think that this law would be unconstitutional and fight it if it applied to your type of trade?
We all hate advertising, but how else are goods and services to be sold? Are business to business cold calls also exempted? How much is it going to cost to buy this list from the goverment? Won't this just further raise the cost of doing business in America causing more people to lose jobs...
why would it be a big deal if they are using the software for collaboration. I'm sure they are using email, telephones and pencils too... If Groove is actually acting as a subcontractor and doing TIA research then I could understand being upset, since TIA is very very very unamerican.
"Your money goes for all sorts of crap that is worth getting more upset about than this."
No, it is precisely because I care about the future of space travel that I don't want people to be taken in by this poor excuse for an idea. I could be horribly wrong, but this seems so far outside of the realm of possibility that it would be historically naive to chase this with real money. Continued research into nanotubules is warranted given their potential, but let's first see some super bridges made from them or something. At least some proof of concept.
The authors are basically saying that if they have item x, then it should be able to build y. Yes, of course, and if I had a magic substance that could reverse gravity, then I wouldn't need a silly string to get me to orbit either. The point is that the required technology doesn't exist and unless someone discovers that it does, then nobody should be making travel plans, much less building plans.
I'm happy to hear of people trying big things like this, but before we start throwing billions of dollars at something let's check the premises.
As is pointed out in the review, the basic premise of this is just theoretical... "While carbon nanotubes have a theoretical tensile strength of 300 GPa (billion newtons per square meter), strengths of only 11.2 to 64.3 GPa have been experimentally measured thus far."... So this is still just science fiction.
Yea rockets clearly won't get you very far... I'll let you know when I figure something better out. But so far no one else has.
Just because you can do something... doesn't mean you should. This would be a horrible waste of money.
This is precisely why the government should not be involved in pioneering space travel...the tendency to think big is not good in this case.
If the originators think this is such a great idea, then let them raise the money and do it themselves. I'll be the first in line to congratulate them, but keep my money away from this scheme.
just to be clear, a flying car is really just an informal term for a small private VTOL(vertical take-off and landing) aircraft that can carry you directly from start to end point. The landing requirements are that of a helicopter without the worry of a rotor taking someone's head off since the propulsion system should be enclosed. Also, there might be some ability to drive the vehicle some distance, at least far enough that a person might be able to use it as their only vehicle. Something like the Moller Skycar
On the restrictions after 9-11... The airspace restrictions on small planes are exceedingly dumb. Clearly the big commercial planes are the threat, but small private planes still face the greatest restrictions.
I wish people would remember back to 1994 when Clinton was in office... I couldn't find any pictures and they said it landed short of the whitehouse, but I remember it looked as if a small plane bounced off the outside of the whitehouse. Here is a reference to the event.
A small private plane cannot be used alone to cause significant damage. Clearly anything can be used as a weapon, but a small flying vehicle even in the hands of ill intended people can not cause more harm than other readily available common means.
The costs to not moving forward quickly to expand and allow private aviation are inumerable.
Who exactly was going to "give" us these magical toys? The Government? Big corporations?
Flying cars are not largely a technological problem, but a regulatory one. One that looks less likely to be solved anytime soon as long as most people still fear things that can fall out of the sky. I would add irrationally afraid, since people seem more than willing to assume the much greater risks of getting into a car every day. Even though tens and tens of thousands of people die in cars each year, the plane crashes still make the headlines... why is that?
If you want a flying car, go make one. You'll be breaking the law, most likely, if you succeed, but you can do it with todays technology. But I wouldn't wait for anyone to hand you one... The current air traffic control system is just simply not expandable to handle the sorts of air traffic that could result from a lot of people using flying cars. The proposals of one sort or another all seem to envision very complex systems of centralized ground control, which seem untenable for wide scale use. Imagine thousands of airplanes being centralling controlled by ground computers... bad bad bad idea.
Until the governement gets out of the way on legal use of the airspace, then most of us will have to stick to the ground.
I know if you've been attacked, then it must seem like the world is falling apart, but it isn't. I suggest that your company stops pissing people off so much that it gets attacked so often. Leave the rest of us out of this. It is your problem.
I believe you said something previously about only talking about servers, but this is a totally false pretense. Most PCs accept some sort of incoming connection when they are powered and on a broadband connection. The internet itself doesn't distinguish between servers and PCs. So any globally imposed solution must be applied to all users.
If a centralized authority is left to determine what and who can and cannot connect to the internet, then we are back to the days when only Ma Bell leased phones were allowed to connect to the phone network, anything else being a threat to security... probably more so financial security. Oh and forget the Inter part of Internet, you can't enforce such a centralized licensing scheme worldwide.
The game of whack a mole that is being played now might not seem productive, but it is far far better for most of us than further restricting the use of the internet to a select trusted few. While I agree that your ideas would make it harder for malicous attackers to carry out an attack, the centralized resources that are a natural result of such notions lead to far greater risk.
In other words, Don't put all your eggs in one basket, then you won't need an armed guard for a stupid basket of eggs.
"How exactly are network archetects supposed to design for 300 drones all sending traffic to one place? There is no amount of overcapacity that would handle that."
Just design the system to handle 301 attackers.:)
All in all I think the internet is working pretty well these days. And I think it is very important for servers that are attached to the internet to be as up to date as possible. But vulnerabilities will always exist regardless of the latest patch.
What might help though would be if Network operators had good contact information for server admins, so that they could notify them as soon as they see problems, so that they can identify and shut down the offending systems quickly. Bad computers should be unplugged
Slashdot Mirror
And I mean Suck. They suck the life out of America. They suck the life out of every individual that is forced to work an average of 10 years during their lifetime (based on around a 15% income tax and a 60 year lifespan) in the service not of themselves, but of the federal governement. That is at least 2 months every year working for what? What free people would choose to do that to themselves? And still the federal government can't pay the bills that they are writing...
... and we wonder why? Because we have elected a generation of spinless whanabees. They are so used to believing their own lies, that when a big corporation goes to a congressman and says 'we need your laws to keep us in business', the congressman doesn't think 'is what they are asking consistent with an American value of freedom?'... no, they ask themselves whether the business is big enough to keep the coffers flowing.
Trillions of dollars in debts have been accumulating, yet we still play these stupid games. Oh it's the Dems fault... it's the Republicans. No, it's America's fault. America's fault for not seeing through the daily lies that our elected representatives now even seem to believe themselves. America's fault for believing the carpet baggers when they tell you they have all the answers to your daily struggles. America's fault for signing up for all those credit cards which you can never pay off. American's fault for their forgiveness, when the itinerant congressman or president tell you and themselves that the lies they told were better than the alternative. America's fault for not seeing through the scam of social security from the very beginning... It only works when the population is growing and most people don't live very long, still sound good to you?
Both parties have ceased representing the interests of citizens in the government, but instead try to banally represent the excesses of goverment back to us in patriotic terms.
Now we see all these restrictive laws being passed
With every iteration, laws become more restrictive more intrusive and more unintelligable. Until one day, noone can live a day of their lives without fear that somehow they are breaking some law and right and wrong are so far removed from the law that only your political connections or your subserviance will keep you out of harms way.
Big government is bad government.
And yes, I just did my taxes!
"4) Since there's no reason for them to need to send it out *not* through the ISP as a relay host, the majority of these users are spammers or just ignorant. In the first case, it's good to block them. In the second, maybe they will get a clue."
you simply just don't get it. some people don't want to shell out additional money for the right to use their own domain at home. Don't you think that small business' might want to try and save some money. This ain't 1999 after all.
As someone else pointed out ISPs won't relay non isp domain email as you suggest. And why should people be charged more for getting no additional service or bandwidth from an ISP.
This is what I call blackmail service. You give us more money and we won't break your legs or cripple your Internet connection.
Do you really think that an incoming only internet connection provides much value to people?? The internet is a two way stret, deal with it.
"I thought this was pretty much debunked a couple years ago?"
.... i mean entrepreneur... and his particular invention which would have brought endless bandwidth at light speed to power lines. The physics seemed a little screwy on that "invention", but this is just old fashioned sending a signal down a wire. So nothing new here in physics circles.
The article you reference talks about a particular scammer
This has more to do with business and legal issues than new technology. Just happens that power companies already have big cables running to every home (right of way) and they are just trying to figure out an economical way to use them for telecom. Just as the cable companies did. Except the electrical distribution grid is not as easy to convert as the cable networks were.
If you don't wish to be free, then don't pretend to be. Just get out of the way or do what I tell you, so that I may live my life freely.
Live free or die. Yes, I mean that.
"Code-Monkeys: these guys do exactly what they are thought to do: Grind out code. Usually not innovative, usually no technical achievement. Nevertheless, they'll get the job done especially if its something that they can base off other things."
I disagree. Most engineers of any specialty rely upon existing well understood designs which they might modify to fit a particular situation, but rarely ever venture very far from what they have been shown to work before. So it would seem that there is no difference between an engineer and a monkey who also bases his work closely on the work of others.
Seems the only rational basis for understanding a title is for litigious reasons. So someone who has met certain requirements and follows well understood practices is given legal cover.
If such a dastardly law came into effect I would argue that no device can conceal the orgination of a communication, because it is always the originiation of the communication. No more than a computer conceals the fact that the message really came from the keyboard, which first came from a person.
Unfortuneately, we all know that lawyers will selectively apply this law to just those things that the mega corporations don't like, such as internet sharing devices and home networks. But really it should be applied to all electronic or mechanical communication devices, since to be consistent they all conceal who the communication is coming from. So no more telephones, computers or cell phones either... just face to face communication is allowed from now on.
Sounds like we are going back to the good old days when people could go to jail for hooking up a modem to a phone line.
"Iraq probably is not all that population dense outside of Baghdad and Basra. CDMA really comes into its element when you are out in the countryside with few sites covering large expanses of land."
So if I understand what you are saying, CDMA is much better where there is nobody around? Hmmmm... sounds like a useful feature... oh wait a sec.
"The US is amoral"
I agree with this statement, but it should be pointed out that all institutions or other artificial group entities are without morals. Morals are an individual human attribute.
One of my history professors promoted the idea that history is best understood as "actors pursuing values through institutions." So, it is the actors that pursue some sort of value, whether it me moral value or some sort of resource, and not the institution, which is a tool towards some end.
hey just change your email address every two years. I was getting so much junk email that I decided to change addresses. Just gave out the new email address to friends and haven't gotten on anyone's list yet.
Very simple solution.
Just to warn you, I'm applying for a patent, so if you change your email address to avoid spam you owe me $5.
agreed.
The part about the file sharing debate that most of us take issue with is the blanket prior restraint of the means to copy a particular type of content, not whether it is legal or right to copy someone's creative work when they don't want you too.
Sometimes there really is a fire in a crowded theatre. Would you pass a law making it illegal to say so?
What is really the "regulation" that we are talking about?
It is the Federal government finding itself getting deeper and deeper into debt, and not regulating spectrum in the public trust, but rather selling it to the highest bidder. But Reed is taking a fundamental approach to say that spectrum is fundamentally more akin to speech, holding up a sign, or something like this which has a much higher threshold of regulation in legal circles... (ie you can't always shout fire in a crowded theatre, but mostly you can say whatever you want)
So, this discussion can only be seen properly in context when seen as a reaction against spectrum monopolies.
"Those great big transmitters permit the use of very dumb receivers with poor sensitivy. The very simplicity and asymmetry of broadcast provides tremendous economic and technical appeal, and I'd be amazed if it ever went away."
This sounds like the argument the phone company used to argue against allowing the Internet. Yes, computers cost a lot more than dumb phones, but people are willing to pay more for something that does more and especially for something that allows them to do more.
Phones haven't gone away, but allowing the internet has added greatly to our lives over the past ten years.
well, my understanding from 802.11b is that it will delay sending out a signal if it detects another signal being sent, so this "interference" may not be physical, but technological.
"Frankly, the 2.4GHz spectrum is a case in point of why regulation is needed."
What regulation would you think to impose?
Yes, interference does exist, but it should be understood as a problem with the receiver not being able to pick out the right information, but he is essentially correct that no information is destroyed with multiple broadcasts at the same frequency, so it should be possible to sort through the signal and figure out what you want. Yes this distinction in terms is made more for political reasons, but it coincides with the physical reality.
Also, If you think regulation is needed in the 2.4GHz spectrum, how do you account for the widespread adoption of wireless communications in an unregulated spectrum? Doesn't this reality force you to look at your political assumptions. Yes these devices have to be more clever when there are more simultaneous transmissions, but so do our brains when there are a lot of people talking in a room and we want to listen to just one.
I am not completely against regulating spectrum, it is obvious that some technologies are best left alone as they were originally designed. (am and fm radio for instance) But more and different ranges of spectrum should become unlicensed to make them available to intelligent devices which don't mind so much noise.
He is basically proposing the entire spectrum be unlicensed like visable light, and the spectrum used by WiFi devices and cordless phones. So we already have bandwidth with which we can see this theory in practice.
If transmissions carry identification about which source they are coming from, then why couldn't a reciever be able to descriminate the information?? That is all he is saying. Although, it would seem that we would still want to regulate the power output to some extent... so I would completely agree with him that spectrum should not be restricted by licensing, but power output from a point source should still be.
Just curious, but would you think that this law would be unconstitutional and fight it if it applied to your type of trade?
We all hate advertising, but how else are goods and services to be sold? Are business to business cold calls also exempted? How much is it going to cost to buy this list from the goverment? Won't this just further raise the cost of doing business in America causing more people to lose jobs...
why would it be a big deal if they are using the software for collaboration. I'm sure they are using email, telephones and pencils too... If Groove is actually acting as a subcontractor and doing TIA research then I could understand being upset, since TIA is very very very unamerican.
What's next... people boycotting boxcutters?
"Your money goes for all sorts of crap that is worth getting more upset about than this."
No, it is precisely because I care about the future of space travel that I don't want people to be taken in by this poor excuse for an idea. I could be horribly wrong, but this seems so far outside of the realm of possibility that it would be historically naive to chase this with real money. Continued research into nanotubules is warranted given their potential, but let's first see some super bridges made from them or something. At least some proof of concept.
The authors are basically saying that if they have item x, then it should be able to build y. Yes, of course, and if I had a magic substance that could reverse gravity, then I wouldn't need a silly string to get me to orbit either. The point is that the required technology doesn't exist and unless someone discovers that it does, then nobody should be making travel plans, much less building plans.
I'm happy to hear of people trying big things like this, but before we start throwing billions of dollars at something let's check the premises.
... So this is still just science fiction.
As is pointed out in the review, the basic premise of this is just theoretical... "While carbon nanotubes have a theoretical tensile strength of 300 GPa (billion newtons per square meter), strengths of only 11.2 to 64.3 GPa have been experimentally measured thus far."
Yea rockets clearly won't get you very far... I'll let you know when I figure something better out. But so far no one else has.
Just because you can do something... doesn't mean you should. This would be a horrible waste of money.
This is precisely why the government should not be involved in pioneering space travel...the tendency to think big is not good in this case.
If the originators think this is such a great idea, then let them raise the money and do it themselves. I'll be the first in line to congratulate them, but keep my money away from this scheme.
just to be clear, a flying car is really just an informal term for a small private VTOL(vertical take-off and landing) aircraft that can carry you directly from start to end point. The landing requirements are that of a helicopter without the worry of a rotor taking someone's head off since the propulsion system should be enclosed. Also, there might be some ability to drive the vehicle some distance, at least far enough that a person might be able to use it as their only vehicle. Something like the Moller Skycar
On the restrictions after 9-11... The airspace restrictions on small planes are exceedingly dumb. Clearly the big commercial planes are the threat, but small private planes still face the greatest restrictions.
I wish people would remember back to 1994 when Clinton was in office... I couldn't find any pictures and they said it landed short of the whitehouse, but I remember it looked as if a small plane bounced off the outside of the whitehouse. Here is a reference to the event.
A small private plane cannot be used alone to cause significant damage. Clearly anything can be used as a weapon, but a small flying vehicle even in the hands of ill intended people can not cause more harm than other readily available common means.
The costs to not moving forward quickly to expand and allow private aviation are inumerable.
Who exactly was going to "give" us these magical toys? The Government? Big corporations?
Flying cars are not largely a technological problem, but a regulatory one. One that looks less likely to be solved anytime soon as long as most people still fear things that can fall out of the sky. I would add irrationally afraid, since people seem more than willing to assume the much greater risks of getting into a car every day. Even though tens and tens of thousands of people die in cars each year, the plane crashes still make the headlines... why is that?
If you want a flying car, go make one. You'll be breaking the law, most likely, if you succeed, but you can do it with todays technology. But I wouldn't wait for anyone to hand you one... The current air traffic control system is just simply not expandable to handle the sorts of air traffic that could result from a lot of people using flying cars. The proposals of one sort or another all seem to envision very complex systems of centralized ground control, which seem untenable for wide scale use. Imagine thousands of airplanes being centralling controlled by ground computers... bad bad bad idea.
Until the governement gets out of the way on legal use of the airspace, then most of us will have to stick to the ground.
No, not your fault, but not my responsibility.
I know if you've been attacked, then it must seem like the world is falling apart, but it isn't. I suggest that your company stops pissing people off so much that it gets attacked so often. Leave the rest of us out of this. It is your problem.
I believe you said something previously about only talking about servers, but this is a totally false pretense. Most PCs accept some sort of incoming connection when they are powered and on a broadband connection. The internet itself doesn't distinguish between servers and PCs. So any globally imposed solution must be applied to all users.
If a centralized authority is left to determine what and who can and cannot connect to the internet, then we are back to the days when only Ma Bell leased phones were allowed to connect to the phone network, anything else being a threat to security... probably more so financial security. Oh and forget the Inter part of Internet, you can't enforce such a centralized licensing scheme worldwide.
The game of whack a mole that is being played now might not seem productive, but it is far far better for most of us than further restricting the use of the internet to a select trusted few. While I agree that your ideas would make it harder for malicous attackers to carry out an attack, the centralized resources that are a natural result of such notions lead to far greater risk.
In other words, Don't put all your eggs in one basket, then you won't need an armed guard for a stupid basket of eggs.
"How exactly are network archetects supposed to design for 300 drones all sending traffic to one place? There is no amount of overcapacity that would handle that."
:)
Just design the system to handle 301 attackers.
All in all I think the internet is working pretty well these days. And I think it is very important for servers that are attached to the internet to be as up to date as possible. But vulnerabilities will always exist regardless of the latest patch.
What might help though would be if Network operators had good contact information for server admins, so that they could notify them as soon as they see problems, so that they can identify and shut down the offending systems quickly. Bad computers should be unplugged