Just out of curiousity, what are you writing documentation for? I myself would approach the problem according to what kind of software it was, and who the intended audience was.
Sorry I didn't include the existing method, VPN. Tunnelling through a VPN would be perfectly able to solve whatever issues they are having security-wise, and they could even design a protocol to do VPN tunnelling with a higher level of encryption than what is currently offered. It'd still cost quite a bit of money to do, but not nearly as much as laying new cable.
While I don't have a problem with this project on a philosophical standpoint like many on here claim we should, I do have some concerns:
1) It costs money and time.
*I* have to pay for this project. This isn't going to be something cheap either. We're talking billions, not millions, and it probably wouldn't be completed in a decade, not years.
2) Who will get access?
All it takes is one spy/criminal with a government job to have access to this network. Albeit there will probably be certain areas that some may not be able to access, but all it takes is one technician, who works on the network and has full access to it, for information to be compromised.
In addition, is the government saying that professors doing their research aren't going to have access to say, the Dept. of Labor's statistics? Trust me, if any group of Americans are good at giving up a stink about the government, it'd be the technocrats of the US. They won't tolerate being left out.
3) What the hell is so secret?
I've long been of the opinion that if the government has something it doesn't want the public to know, it's probably doing something the public doesn't want it to do. I'm not saying that we should demand the gov't put up a website with tax databases available for download, but the only thing I can imagine needing to be secret is private data on citizens. But then again, on that topic I have to beg the question: "What are you doing collecting private data on citizens for?"
As far as security of data for foreign issues, like "protecting America's interests", once again, I have to ask: "What interests are you protecting?"
4) Existing methods can do the job fine
I can't imagine how a separate network could be shown in a cost-benefit analysis to be more efficient. But then again, our government *isn't efficient*, so it doesn't suprise me that they'd try something like this instead.
Ironically, the government does not need to consider cost in deciding whether or not a project is worthwhile. Indeed, if they need more money, they just increase taxes or pull more out of the Social Security Multi-Level Marketing Scam. It really doesn't make sense, but that is the way our government works. We just have to accept it.
Stuffit expander does not *run* the application, **BUT** what exactly is the next thing that someone does once they download said item?
Unless they are downloading trojans or viruses in a compressed format, this is actually cutting out an extra step.
And to be completely honest, if you think users are going to *hate* this, you need to hang around Mac consumers a bit more often.
And finally, I challenge any of you here to come up with a Mac trojan that works on OS X. If you can, and post a URL within the next 5 days, I'll click on it with our OSX IE5 Macintosh at work.
I'd like to see people actually start creating viruses for the Mac. It'd make my job more important.
If I could I *would* mod you down...
on
Our New Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
..not because of what you have to say, but because you are clearly speculating on something that we aren't certain about yet.
Everyone seemed pretty damn certain Oklahoma City was an outside terrorist toying with our country, we all know how that ended up.
Sheep are people that go with the flow, they are lead one direction or another. Trust me, I've dealt with a few.
So while you may or may not be correct in your assumptions, don't play victim to the moderators when you are making assumptions and speculating as to who may have done this.
The "root of it all" may turn out to be domestic terrorism. And if so, you'd really look bad.
"You have no right of privacy in on-the-job online communications."
Maybe it is just me, but I have a job to get paid. My "communications" are usually not done on the job, and the ones that *are* done on the job are specifically related to my job.
There is substantial evidence that the people who are too often *not* doing job-related work on the job usually are employees that have the lowest performance evaluations anyway.
This leads me to believe that companies are wasting time monitoring what their employees are doing online, as they will often end up showing poor performance in the near future anyway.
However, I ardently *disagree* with anyone who says that companies "should not be allowed to do this". It is completely acceptable for a company to want to ensure that employees are staying on task, not commit crimes online for which the company would be responsible, and aren't disrupting other communications needed for the company network.
If you don't like your boss looking around your shoulder, go elsewhere. And don't give me BS about every company monitoring employees, some of the best paying jobs are offered by companies that *don't* monitor.
Eventually what will happen is that the issue will turn into what we have for phone usage, companies that care about whether or not you use the company phone on company time will be the ones that care if you use the companies Internet on company time.
It's impossible to favor gun regulations and oppose computer regulations and remain philosophically consistent.
Regardless of your opinions on the statement streetlawyer, you've yet to refute it. Since you oppose restrictions on the means by which people commit computer crime, care to explain why you favor restrictions on the means by which people commit gun crime?
I know what positions you hold, but you're not very clear in explaining them. Then again, most socialists aren't clear, thus the reason for wanting to know what differences exist between an opressive government and an opressive corporation. What makes both of them so different philosophically?
That's funny, do you believe in the death penalty for citizen's of a country as well? If not, why the bias towards corporations?
Just because a politician claims to be true-blue libertarian, doesn't mean they really are, or that they will stay that way under the real-life pressures of government.
You can answer the following question, but I'd like to see if you even have the willpower to do the research so you can do so, or if you're just blurting crap that makes you feel better. Here it is:
Name one libertarian that, upon getting elected, was not true to their libertarian background, under the "real-life pressures of government".
In other words, we have little to no evidence showing us that Libertarians *would* back out, so why are you discounting it before the fact?
Most of those I know that run are in it on principle, hence the reason the party is called the "Party of Principle". The *idea* is what they run based upon, not the *belief* that they themselves have.
You said it yourself though. It was civil and not criminal.
I don't care what the arguments are, there is an entire world of difference between a criminal case (funded by taxpayers for interpretting laws that were created by special interests groups using legislatures) and a civil case (funded by the corporations or individuals that didn't already have the intuition to bribe a politician into creating a law that benefits them)
And yet slashdotters *still* think I'm an idiot when I say that businesses will use the government to "get around" capitalism by passing regulations and other items in such a way that the sheep think they need them.
Ever heard of charitable trust funds? It's the reason why meritocrats are better than us. They thought of something they knew they'd be able to convince us we needed as a country.
So yeah, criminal and civil have a lot of difference. Intuitive thinkers (or corporations with a lot of money) create laws beforehand so they don't *have* to do a civil case.
CmdrTaco, Repeat after me: "Their image is ruined. Their image is ruined."
It doesn't matter how the litigation ends, litigation itself *ruined* them. The fact that it existed has given them a no-win situation.
MS has invested too much in XP and the Xbox, at least one of which will be a total failure. It really *is* over, MS is no longer what it used to be, and it is downhill from here.
If you want to fight the next "rich capitalist bastard" (tm) you need to start going after Warren Buffett.
I'm a Libertarian myself. I just said that because it seems rather obvious that Democrats/Greens would be in favor of an enviromental control to limit computer customization before the Republicans.
However it does seem rather obvious that the Republicans would end up tagging along on the issue.
I'm a Libertarian cause I know where they stand, I simply added that thing in about all the political parties to make sure I didn't offend one party too much by saying it would be the cause of all hell and rather saying all parties are.
I don't *believe* that way, but the PC police don't want me ruining their little escapades.
I was accepted for beta 4 of AO and was disappointed to find that my CD did not work, and that I would not be able to play the game after I was told the CD key issue would be fixed.
I did some reasearch, some calls to Funcom, and finally got a hold of a Funcom employee on IRC.
What he/she told me was unbelieveable. They had shipped CDs with invalid CD keys for the final product, made horrible changes that involved new net code that they were fully aware would not support even a third of the users who had pre-ordered the game, and other info.
I posted this info on their forums and got flamed into oblivion by current users in the beta saying that I was just upset and trying to make Funcom look bad cause I didn't get in the beta.
Well, oddly enough, I was also planning a review for the game and wasn't able to make one. I guess it was one positive review they didn't get.
Oh, and last I saw of the users that flamed me, they were on the AO forums complaining about not being able to play.
We already have several *regulations* in place. Eventually it will be a requirement to buy an LCD machine rather than the energy hogging CRT monitors. This cuts down on the average joe's ability to customize his own machine quite considerably.
And what do we do when emissions are *discovered* to come from the computers themselves? You tell me...
Do I feel the clean air act was implemented to stop car mods or achieve clean air?
I feel that if the auto industry truly had the grip that it did on politics at the time, I don't think it should have *supported* the clean air act, yet oddly enough, most did.
It would almost seem as if it was an attempt to *prevent* people from doing their own customizing and design, and rather have them pay full price for big auto's machine instead.
So, regardless of what good intentions you may believe the clean air act had, the end of car modding (till recently when it has become affordable again) was what the big supporters had in mind.
They just successfully tricked the American people into thinking they were "helping the enviroment".
Remember, both those two items I mention in the subject of this message are *not* new items. What if the government started saying that monitor emissions needed to be regulated and or that cases had to fit a certain design with no sharp corners.
For all we know, Alienware machines may be this century's Mustangs!
It's all up to what regulation the government has planned for us next.
First off, the article is about Do-It-Yourself computing. Or more specifically, building your own machines, something we all do.
He seems to think that we won't be doing it much longer since companies have been catering to our needs? I ask, in what fashion?
I still can't find an AMD Athlon T-bird 750mhz with a gig of RAM and all the fixings without building it myself for under 500. Pricewatch will be around for a long time hopefully, and as long as it is, I'll be ordering my stuff on there. Sepearately.
I've yet to see company offer a great price for prebuilding a system to my specifications.
I do have to say he hit the nail on the head with this one:
Two events conspired to effectively destroy the market for modifying cars. The first was the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, which started the ball rolling for mandatory air pollution controls on cars.
While the second one was about oil shortages, I'd have to say the first was the biggest problem. My dad and uncle *still* talk about how great life was way back when they could modify cars as they see fit.
So, here's my prediction: The Greens/Democrats (not chosen cause I disagree with them political, but rather because it is most likely based on philosophy that such a social policy would come from either of those two) will introduce legislation preventing techies from building their own machines at feasible prices within the next 5 years. The Republicans (not chosen because I disagree with them politically, but because they are in a "compassion" phase right now, which ultimately mean "comprimise" phase, where they vote however they deem necessary to get majority votes on *their* bills) will of course support the bill once the Democrats get enough convincing and possibly support from Apple (the biggest company to gain from the bill), Dell, HP, Compaq, and other big PC builders, which could easily meet the regulations, while us small-time PC builders cannot.
Don't think it'll happen, you just wait. Remember I made this post.
As a student from Iowa State University, I can honestly say I hear too much about that damn car already. They usually tend to do really well in races, but its just a solar powered car designed for racing.
The cars have had many setbacks as shown at:
http://www.prisum.iastate.edu/press/
And generally, I find it annoying that my tutition money goes to pay for this and I have absolutely *no* say against it whatsoever.
However, just as a side note, they've been working on getting outside funding now for the last few years and I've been impressed with what they've done. I only wish half the ISU organizations were as serious about getting outside funding as Team PrISUm is.
The number of capitalist bashers on/. seem to think the US is a capitalist society. It's more akin to a odd breed of socialism-capitalism, where the only chance one has of becoming a "capitalist" entails copyrighting or patenting a product, suing those that use it, and using the government to impose regulations on competitors in the name of "public good".
I have yet to hear any economist call that capitalism.
Goto Google, type in "UHIE" or "Urban Heat Island Effect".
Tada! *Still* unrefuted (haven't seen a good write-up against it) proof that "Global Warming" is the "Troll of the 20th Century".
Yes, but I hate arguing along these lines as the social greens can't seem to grasp the benefit between living a life in fear of the future and living a life knowing what direction you are headed.
Not to mention how enviromental "facts" have been brainwashing the western world children. God I wish Stossell luck.
There are two big problems I have with this "new" technology.
1) It isn't anywhere near feasible for common use, nor cheap enough.
2) We already have "pretty good privacy". It's not the best, but it is sufficient and now we need to work on the next big step: securing both ends.
I think we've pretty much covered the encryption news to death and left out some of the big stuff, the compromising of a machine on either end of the communication.
What good does a secure method of communication do when the website you are dealing with stores your credit card info in clear text databases on machines 4 different crackers have access too?
What good is securing a transmission with a customer when their Windows box is already compromised by a Subseven server?
I guess what my biggest beef with secure communication overkill like this is that we've already determined it is possible to secure a transmission. We haven't determined how to properly secure both the client and the server.
"Hint: People are born to this planet for other reasons than being kept in the dark and raped over by corporations. Aren't they? "
Actually they are not. Look at your father and his father and grandfathers and etc. Did they *accomplish* anything? Oh sure, some of them managed to make a living, a name for themselves and might be well-known in some places other than simply local.
But in reality our society as it currently stands is full of sheep for the herding. You'll continue working for the company, paying money to the government, and generally will live a life having "served" somebody.
No one is guaranteed a life without serving someone, be it the corporate big-wigs or the overeaching totalitarian regime.
What it amounts to is nihilism and anarchy becoming more and more popular, something that might set us back an eon if unleashed inappropriately.
We should ease up on governmental regulations rather than driving ourselves back into the secluded societies we once were. It's going to be tough figuring out how to do it, but losening gov't restrictions can't hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is the search engine they'll be taking down. I can assure you, no one will care that its gone nor will the CIA ever accomplish anything.
Just out of curiousity, what are you writing documentation for? I myself would approach the problem according to what kind of software it was, and who the intended audience was.
Sorry I didn't include the existing method, VPN. Tunnelling through a VPN would be perfectly able to solve whatever issues they are having security-wise, and they could even design a protocol to do VPN tunnelling with a higher level of encryption than what is currently offered. It'd still cost quite a bit of money to do, but not nearly as much as laying new cable.
While I don't have a problem with this project on a philosophical standpoint like many on here claim we should, I do have some concerns:
1) It costs money and time.
*I* have to pay for this project. This isn't going to be something cheap either. We're talking billions, not millions, and it probably wouldn't be completed in a decade, not years.
2) Who will get access?
All it takes is one spy/criminal with a government job to have access to this network. Albeit there will probably be certain areas that some may not be able to access, but all it takes is one technician, who works on the network and has full access to it, for information to be compromised.
In addition, is the government saying that professors doing their research aren't going to have access to say, the Dept. of Labor's statistics? Trust me, if any group of Americans are good at giving up a stink about the government, it'd be the technocrats of the US. They won't tolerate being left out.
3) What the hell is so secret?
I've long been of the opinion that if the government has something it doesn't want the public to know, it's probably doing something the public doesn't want it to do. I'm not saying that we should demand the gov't put up a website with tax databases available for download, but the only thing I can imagine needing to be secret is private data on citizens. But then again, on that topic I have to beg the question: "What are you doing collecting private data on citizens for?"
As far as security of data for foreign issues, like "protecting America's interests", once again, I have to ask: "What interests are you protecting?"
4) Existing methods can do the job fine
I can't imagine how a separate network could be shown in a cost-benefit analysis to be more efficient. But then again, our government *isn't efficient*, so it doesn't suprise me that they'd try something like this instead.
Ironically, the government does not need to consider cost in deciding whether or not a project is worthwhile. Indeed, if they need more money, they just increase taxes or pull more out of the Social Security Multi-Level Marketing Scam. It really doesn't make sense, but that is the way our government works. We just have to accept it.
No offense, but could an editor please fix this? I'm almost embarrased to say I frequent the site at this point.
Yes, RAM is cheap, but unless you regularly swipe sticks of it from factories in Asia, its *not* cheaper in memory-per-unit-of-currency.
Sometimes I wonder if the /. editors even frequent Pricewatch like the rest of us. Here's an example:
$3 for 64 meg is the cheapest memory-per-unit-of-currency on RAM
That's 64 meg/3$ = 21.333 meg for a buck. Remember this is the *best* memory/currency ratio for RAM on Pricewatch. (And thus the world)
$199 for 25.0 gig is the most costly memory-per-unit-of-currency on Hard Drives. /$199 = 125 meg for a buck. Remember this is the *worst* memory/currency ratio for HDs on Pricewatch (And quite possible, with *that* high of a cost for a measly 25 gigs, the world. Do *not* take up that deal.)
That's 25,0000 meg
So yes, at this point I'm embarrased to see that above comment by the editor.
Stuffit expander already unzips/decodes files.
Stuffit expander does not *run* the application, **BUT** what exactly is the next thing that someone does once they download said item?
Unless they are downloading trojans or viruses in a compressed format, this is actually cutting out an extra step.
And to be completely honest, if you think users are going to *hate* this, you need to hang around Mac consumers a bit more often.
And finally, I challenge any of you here to come up with a Mac trojan that works on OS X. If you can, and post a URL within the next 5 days, I'll click on it with our OSX IE5 Macintosh at work.
I'd like to see people actually start creating viruses for the Mac. It'd make my job more important.
..not because of what you have to say, but because you are clearly speculating on something that we aren't certain about yet.
Everyone seemed pretty damn certain Oklahoma City was an outside terrorist toying with our country, we all know how that ended up.
Sheep are people that go with the flow, they are lead one direction or another. Trust me, I've dealt with a few.
So while you may or may not be correct in your assumptions, don't play victim to the moderators when you are making assumptions and speculating as to who may have done this.
The "root of it all" may turn out to be domestic terrorism. And if so, you'd really look bad.
Maybe it is just me, but I have a job to get paid. My "communications" are usually not done on the job, and the ones that *are* done on the job are specifically related to my job.
There is substantial evidence that the people who are too often *not* doing job-related work on the job usually are employees that have the lowest performance evaluations anyway.
This leads me to believe that companies are wasting time monitoring what their employees are doing online, as they will often end up showing poor performance in the near future anyway.
However, I ardently *disagree* with anyone who says that companies "should not be allowed to do this". It is completely acceptable for a company to want to ensure that employees are staying on task, not commit crimes online for which the company would be responsible, and aren't disrupting other communications needed for the company network.
If you don't like your boss looking around your shoulder, go elsewhere. And don't give me BS about every company monitoring employees, some of the best paying jobs are offered by companies that *don't* monitor.
Eventually what will happen is that the issue will turn into what we have for phone usage, companies that care about whether or not you use the company phone on company time will be the ones that care if you use the companies Internet on company time.
Regardless of your opinions on the statement streetlawyer, you've yet to refute it. Since you oppose restrictions on the means by which people commit computer crime, care to explain why you favor restrictions on the means by which people commit gun crime?
I know what positions you hold, but you're not very clear in explaining them. Then again, most socialists aren't clear, thus the reason for wanting to know what differences exist between an opressive government and an opressive corporation. What makes both of them so different philosophically?
That's funny, do you believe in the death penalty for citizen's of a country as well? If not, why the bias towards corporations?
Just because a politician claims to be true-blue libertarian, doesn't mean they really are, or that they will stay that way under the real-life pressures of government.
You can answer the following question, but I'd like to see if you even have the willpower to do the research so you can do so, or if you're just blurting crap that makes you feel better. Here it is:
Name one libertarian that, upon getting elected, was not true to their libertarian background, under the "real-life pressures of government".
In other words, we have little to no evidence showing us that Libertarians *would* back out, so why are you discounting it before the fact?
Most of those I know that run are in it on principle, hence the reason the party is called the "Party of Principle". The *idea* is what they run based upon, not the *belief* that they themselves have.
You said it yourself though. It was civil and not criminal.
I don't care what the arguments are, there is an entire world of difference between a criminal case (funded by taxpayers for interpretting laws that were created by special interests groups using legislatures) and a civil case (funded by the corporations or individuals that didn't already have the intuition to bribe a politician into creating a law that benefits them)
And yet slashdotters *still* think I'm an idiot when I say that businesses will use the government to "get around" capitalism by passing regulations and other items in such a way that the sheep think they need them.
Ever heard of charitable trust funds? It's the reason why meritocrats are better than us. They thought of something they knew they'd be able to convince us we needed as a country.
So yeah, criminal and civil have a lot of difference. Intuitive thinkers (or corporations with a lot of money) create laws beforehand so they don't *have* to do a civil case.
Adobe is an example of this.
If you do end up going Wireless LAN like some on here have mentioned, go get it at the cheapest price. Goto Pricewatch.
www.pricewatch.com
None of those fuckers should be getting my money. That's the whole point!
CmdrTaco, Repeat after me: "Their image is ruined. Their image is ruined."
It doesn't matter how the litigation ends, litigation itself *ruined* them. The fact that it existed has given them a no-win situation.
MS has invested too much in XP and the Xbox, at least one of which will be a total failure. It really *is* over, MS is no longer what it used to be, and it is downhill from here.
If you want to fight the next "rich capitalist bastard" (tm) you need to start going after Warren Buffett.
I'm a Libertarian myself. I just said that because it seems rather obvious that Democrats/Greens would be in favor of an enviromental control to limit computer customization before the Republicans.
However it does seem rather obvious that the Republicans would end up tagging along on the issue.
I'm a Libertarian cause I know where they stand, I simply added that thing in about all the political parties to make sure I didn't offend one party too much by saying it would be the cause of all hell and rather saying all parties are.
I don't *believe* that way, but the PC police don't want me ruining their little escapades.
I was accepted for beta 4 of AO and was disappointed to find that my CD did not work, and that I would not be able to play the game after I was told the CD key issue would be fixed.
I did some reasearch, some calls to Funcom, and finally got a hold of a Funcom employee on IRC.
What he/she told me was unbelieveable. They had shipped CDs with invalid CD keys for the final product, made horrible changes that involved new net code that they were fully aware would not support even a third of the users who had pre-ordered the game, and other info.
I posted this info on their forums and got flamed into oblivion by current users in the beta saying that I was just upset and trying to make Funcom look bad cause I didn't get in the beta.
Well, oddly enough, I was also planning a review for the game and wasn't able to make one. I guess it was one positive review they didn't get.
Oh, and last I saw of the users that flamed me, they were on the AO forums complaining about not being able to play.
Dare I say "I warned you!"?
We already have several *regulations* in place. Eventually it will be a requirement to buy an LCD machine rather than the energy hogging CRT monitors. This cuts down on the average joe's ability to customize his own machine quite considerably.
And what do we do when emissions are *discovered* to come from the computers themselves? You tell me...
Do I feel the clean air act was implemented to stop car mods or achieve clean air?
I feel that if the auto industry truly had the grip that it did on politics at the time, I don't think it should have *supported* the clean air act, yet oddly enough, most did.
It would almost seem as if it was an attempt to *prevent* people from doing their own customizing and design, and rather have them pay full price for big auto's machine instead.
So, regardless of what good intentions you may believe the clean air act had, the end of car modding (till recently when it has become affordable again) was what the big supporters had in mind.
They just successfully tricked the American people into thinking they were "helping the enviroment".
Remember, both those two items I mention in the subject of this message are *not* new items. What if the government started saying that monitor emissions needed to be regulated and or that cases had to fit a certain design with no sharp corners.
For all we know, Alienware machines may be this century's Mustangs!
It's all up to what regulation the government has planned for us next.
He seems to think that we won't be doing it much longer since companies have been catering to our needs? I ask, in what fashion?
I still can't find an AMD Athlon T-bird 750mhz with a gig of RAM and all the fixings without building it myself for under 500. Pricewatch will be around for a long time hopefully, and as long as it is, I'll be ordering my stuff on there. Sepearately.
I've yet to see company offer a great price for prebuilding a system to my specifications.
I do have to say he hit the nail on the head with this one:
Two events conspired to effectively destroy the market for modifying cars. The first was the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, which started the ball rolling for mandatory air pollution controls on cars.
While the second one was about oil shortages, I'd have to say the first was the biggest problem. My dad and uncle *still* talk about how great life was way back when they could modify cars as they see fit.
So, here's my prediction: The Greens/Democrats (not chosen cause I disagree with them political, but rather because it is most likely based on philosophy that such a social policy would come from either of those two) will introduce legislation preventing techies from building their own machines at feasible prices within the next 5 years. The Republicans (not chosen because I disagree with them politically, but because they are in a "compassion" phase right now, which ultimately mean "comprimise" phase, where they vote however they deem necessary to get majority votes on *their* bills) will of course support the bill once the Democrats get enough convincing and possibly support from Apple (the biggest company to gain from the bill), Dell, HP, Compaq, and other big PC builders, which could easily meet the regulations, while us small-time PC builders cannot.
Don't think it'll happen, you just wait. Remember I made this post.
As a student from Iowa State University, I can honestly say I hear too much about that damn car already. They usually tend to do really well in races, but its just a solar powered car designed for racing.
The cars have had many setbacks as shown at:
http://www.prisum.iastate.edu/press/
And generally, I find it annoying that my tutition money goes to pay for this and I have absolutely *no* say against it whatsoever.
However, just as a side note, they've been working on getting outside funding now for the last few years and I've been impressed with what they've done. I only wish half the ISU organizations were as serious about getting outside funding as Team PrISUm is.
I just wish I'd quit hearing about that damn car.
The number of capitalist bashers on /. seem to think the US is a capitalist society. It's more akin to a odd breed of socialism-capitalism, where the only chance one has of becoming a "capitalist" entails copyrighting or patenting a product, suing those that use it, and using the government to impose regulations on competitors in the name of "public good".
I have yet to hear any economist call that capitalism.
Goto Google, type in "UHIE" or "Urban Heat Island Effect". Tada! *Still* unrefuted (haven't seen a good write-up against it) proof that "Global Warming" is the "Troll of the 20th Century".
Yes, but I hate arguing along these lines as the social greens can't seem to grasp the benefit between living a life in fear of the future and living a life knowing what direction you are headed.
Not to mention how enviromental "facts" have been brainwashing the western world children. God I wish Stossell luck.
There are two big problems I have with this "new" technology.
1) It isn't anywhere near feasible for common use, nor cheap enough.
2) We already have "pretty good privacy". It's not the best, but it is sufficient and now we need to work on the next big step: securing both ends.
I think we've pretty much covered the encryption news to death and left out some of the big stuff, the compromising of a machine on either end of the communication.
What good does a secure method of communication do when the website you are dealing with stores your credit card info in clear text databases on machines 4 different crackers have access too?
What good is securing a transmission with a customer when their Windows box is already compromised by a Subseven server?
I guess what my biggest beef with secure communication overkill like this is that we've already determined it is possible to secure a transmission. We haven't determined how to properly secure both the client and the server.
"Hint: People are born to this planet for other reasons than being kept in the dark and raped over by corporations. Aren't they? "
Actually they are not. Look at your father and his father and grandfathers and etc. Did they *accomplish* anything? Oh sure, some of them managed to make a living, a name for themselves and might be well-known in some places other than simply local.
But in reality our society as it currently stands is full of sheep for the herding. You'll continue working for the company, paying money to the government, and generally will live a life having "served" somebody.
No one is guaranteed a life without serving someone, be it the corporate big-wigs or the overeaching totalitarian regime.
What it amounts to is nihilism and anarchy becoming more and more popular, something that might set us back an eon if unleashed inappropriately.
We should ease up on governmental regulations rather than driving ourselves back into the secluded societies we once were. It's going to be tough figuring out how to do it, but losening gov't restrictions can't hurt.