If you actually check out the link for the publisher they're mostly reprinting old "positive thinking" stuff. I smell publicity stunt. Then again, it could just be a debunked, false issue.
Wait, you're telling me I've turned control of my TV over to a woman?!
AAAAAAA!!!;-);-)
Why NASA is important
on
Redirecting NASA
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
We're going to have to leave this planet eventually, if we want to survive as a species.
For this reasons, I support J. Richard Gott's proposal (in Time Travel in Einstein's Universe) "The goal of the human spaceflight program should be to increase our survival prospects by colonizing space."
He goes through more detail in the book (It's in the last chapter "Report from the future"), but the basic idea is that we could probably colonize Mars today, with about the same effort as we did the Moon missions. And to do so would exponentially increase our survivability as a species and probably do no ends of other good.
This isn't just an idea for America. It's an idea the entire world could get behind. It's an inspirational idea, one that is worthy of our species and civilization.
And it wouldn't just have to be funded by governments. Make donations to it tax deductible and let corporations help. This is a bet on our existance, folks. Because we only have a short while that we have the economy and political will to actually explore space (at least, since the Cold War ended). We go now, or we go never.
Well, I think userfriendly put it best, in that case.
There's a trade-off the RIAA and others like it (MPAA) don't realize. The kind of tactics they're using are not just driving people away from the sanctioned download sites, but they're driving people away from CDs themselves!
They're hurting their own user base. Right now, it's a very small percentage of that user base, but it's the educated and motivated portion, which is a danger to them in the long-run.
The Republican takeover of the (U.S.) Senate has at least one positive outcome - the indefinite shelving of the Hollings bill.
There really are TWO answers to the "spoiling the Earth for human habitation" question, aren't there?
One is fixing the Earth. The environment, etc.
The other is leaving.
Face it folks, mankind IS a parasite (or, as Agent Smith would say, a virus). We use up resources much faster than they can be replenished naturally. But we have the capacity to leave the planet.
And the thing is, it's a good idea, too. Overpopulation could be helped by lots of people moving off planet, the research and science involved in space programs with the stated objective of eventual human colonization of other planets would probably yield tremendous advances that would have beneficial side-effects for the environment (like the research on the bugs needed to consume waste products on a long voyage, which could probably be used to clean up landfills too).
Save the environment, colonize Mars!
Re:Globalization without rules == Corporate Heaven
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This ensures that no region will be rich and other poor. Because people can migrate.
There will ALWAYS be rich and there will ALWAYS be poor. The trick is to do our best to make sure the middle class holds the deciding vote between them.
(ObHistory: The entire history of western civilization, up to and including "globalization" can be summarized in one phrase: "The Rise of the Bourgeosie.")
I have a real issue with folks who have Internet connections and the ability to speak freely saying we should be transferring more of global wealth to the "poor." If that's the case, please, set an example, sell your computer and donate the $$ from your college tuition to Food For the Poor. But if your contribution to the fight against global poverty and dispair is to bitch on a/. message board about how a global government should fix the problem, then I have issues.
Face it folks. WE are that global government. WE are the ones who can make a difference. Set an Earnings Tax on yourself. Vote in favor of stockholder resolutions that require companies in which we hold stock to act in socially conscious ways.
Funny thing about the open, competitive system that has yielded this globalization trend. It evolves from within, through debate and action. We don't need a global government. We don't need a world revolt against "corporations." Those corporations are us folks. We hold their stock, buy their products and take their money. (And if you don't think so, please cash out your 401(k), or if you're a student, please, only go to a school that refuses corporate help.) The "system" responds to the incentives we give it every day. Change the incentives, change the system. Change our individual choices, by an act of will not coercion, change the world.
Development is never balanced. It's not driven by structure or conditions. It's driven by individual people deciding to build a better life for their children. That's it. Why is Singapore rich and peaceful, but unfree, while Uruguay, which arguably has better natural conditions for development, is slipping backwards every day? Because of individual decisions about greed and power.
Build a world your children in which your children have a better opportunity, by making small changes to the way you live your life.
Don't burn down a McDonalds for 15 minutes of fame. Because that, my friends, is hypocrisy.
How about this. What if everything is preordained, but because of its complexity our minds cannot possibly, no matter the scope of our computing and math, understand it all. Therefore, because it is defined but unknowable (i.e., just like quantum mechanics, that electron certainly is somewhere, but we are not able to know where it is by a law of nature) we can ACT like we have free will.
I think there is some kind of interaction between knowing the truth and the truth being true. So, okay, your entire fate is preordained, but you cannot get at that info, therefore, why live your life like you have no free will? The absence of the knowledge yields effects similar to true free will. Effects similar enough that you can get on with life.
In this case, I think he has a strong argument that technology is a vital contributing factor. I'm not sure the point was brought out well enough.
Given:
1. Technology increases the ability of diverse folks to communicate on a global scale, immediately and without filters. (Think Internet chat rooms, cheap global long distance, etc.)
2. Communications will illuminate differences and challenges to strongly held beliefs. (Think/.;-)
3. Immediate and unfiltered communications do not provide context and explanation of practices/customs/norms that are different. Thus, we don't get why Persian women would wear headscarves and they don't get why American women would wear short shorts. It's considered an affront on both sides of the argument by a portion of the population.
4. Partially understood differences (rather than misunderstoond, I misunderstand French, but I partially understand a french person speaking English) yields conflict. (Call it the Babel Fish Axiom - "Because of this, the Babel fish has led to longer and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation." - THHGTTG)
Thus: Technology yields greater communications with less context and explanation, which yiels more conflict.
I think this is Katz's point, but a little more logically outlined.
The Lexus and the Olive Tree
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
[Warning, liberal rant below]
I believe that the forces of integration are long-term stronger and more stable than the forces of disintegration. I believe that the reason that the fringes of cultures are radicalizing is because the centers of cultures are drawing together.
I am a giant proponent of the theory that ideas clash in a marketplace of public discourse and I believe that globalization is merely expanding that marketplace, and that the discourse that results will be beneficial. We're bound to have some bumps along the road. Heck, we're probably bound to go down some blind alleys, but in the end, increased communications and integration will help us all respect each other individually and discover what makes us all human.
[End of Liberal Rant]
Of course, I also believe that the free market is best in 90% of circumstances because it forces individuals to evolve and have goals. My biggest worry is that the concept of individual freedom will be found wanting in the global discussion.
Well, the best stand you can make for your rights to privacy and assembly is probably two fold:
1. Exercise them, by encrypting everything you send until they either make it illegal or engage in the debate effectively and attending assemblies of like minded citizens lawfully petitioning their government for redress.
2. Write a check to the ACLU or your favorite civil-rights group (EFF, whatever). Face it folks, Dollars Vote. Nothing expresses your opinion like purchasing power. So I would recommend, in effect, "purchasing" more advocacy and voice in the system. This is not to say this system is right, it is to say this system is reality. We can complain that it shouldn't be this way all we want, but unless we show a force (read: $$) that those with power respect, we're pissing in the wind.
Personally, I use PGP and have been for a while now. (My Public Key) I probably don't use it as much as I should, but it's definitely used for some conversations at work I wouldn't otherwise want seen. So far, none of my employers have had an issue. I don't - yet - encrypt everything on my home computer, but I'll probably buy something to do that in the near future. (Recommendations welcome!)
My company actually mandated everyone get encryption (in our case, Entrust) on our laptops before we went on a project in Asia last year. Turns out, the clients we were doing the work for would attempt to hack into our computers while we we're using their network. They dove into some folks' laptops and read/copied email, files, etc. and then used the information when negotiating with us! We started encrypting everything related to the project before going on site and the client became a bit easier to deal with. (No comments on why they remained our client, please, I still don't know the answer to that one! Decision not in my hands.)
I mention this because I think there's a possibility to make privacy at an personal level a common cause between corporations and individuals. We just need to make the case loudly and effectively. (which brings me back to my support your local civil rights organization point:)
One thing that occured to me is that it makes a heckuva lot more sense to insert already-encrypted messages into the images than straight text. Wouldn't a PGP message field, for example, look even more like random crap within an image than it does in messages already? Why not PGP encrypt the message and THEN insert it into an image.
I would bet that pre-encrypted messages are more likely to be found in images than non-encrypted ones. This idea plays not only into the Password critique cited above but also into the fact that even if someone FOUND the message in the image, they probably couldn't get at it if the PGP encryption was strong enough.
Have I missed something and the study already considered this possibility? I didn't see it in that article.
Of course, this idea would only give more ammo to folks looking to regulate the use of encryption.
From the article:
"We asked Dr. Steiner where he expected the Electronic Kilogram to "go." He replied, "Consistent results from experiments like this could show that quantum and atomic theories are correct and consistent. Or not. "
Let's redefine a kilogram to add more uncertainty to the pursuit of science!;-)
Except in the case of Manuel Noriega, he was running the country that surrounded the single most important piece of geography to U.S. strategic interests - the Canal. So, when you run drugs AND control the canal, yeah, then you're gonna get stepped on. We've been doing that in this hemisphere for about a hundred and fifty years, so it's not like it was a surprise.
There is a national interest in being careful with the Internet, when you consider the fact that the Internet, by it's nature, makes the entire concept of a 'nation' a little less secure. So projecting your laws outwards is a means of protecting your national idendity in the face of external pressures you have NO OTHER WAY to resist.
So the question we're really asking here may have more to do with the decision to resist outside influences than with extraterritorial laws. I think that folks on the 'Net are more likely to say 'let the external influences be!' Problem is, most people - yes MOST PEOPLE - don't agree with that. And if there's no other way to resist an outside influence than assert extraterritoriality, then extraterritoriality will be asserted, and supported by the majority, even in a democracy.
While we're all talking about potential military misuse of the technology and the destructive power of antimatter, aren't we overlooking one of the coolest things about this research? The second page of the article talked about one of the side-effects of antimatter production was the creation of O-15 which is used in PET scans.
Storage of antimatter is a challenging task, but reaps several benefits. One of which is the generation of O15, a radioisotope used for Positron Emission Tomagraphy (PET) of the human brain. Currently, only certain research hospitals across the world have the ability to create Oxygen-15. Due to its portability, a "radioisotope generator" antimatter trap may be transported to more remote areas for patients who cannot reach these hospitals. A second medical application concerns antiproton radiotherapy of tumors. The NASA Penning trap is being designed with these medical applications in mind.
This fact would potentially offset some of the negatives that antimatter has.
It amazes me the wonderful side-benefits we get from basic research and space research sometimes. Who would have thought that research on propulsion would provide an alternative means to create a rare but medically necessary element in significant quantities?
Yes, they're not adults, but their not toddlers either. Teaching kids that it's okay to be monitored in HS makes them more willing to accept monitoring AFTER HS, and that's kinda scary. I have a hard enough time coping with the idea that my company can monitor my websurfing (like it's doing now) without having been taught that that's okay while I was in HS.
One useful thing about this, however, it that it might increase the accountability of parents and school employees together. Parents can see what teachers have to go through with rowdy students, and similarly parents could see what classes are deemed to be boring by students.
So there's two sides to this, as with everything. It increases accountability but decreases a sense of trust.
For the record, I'm not someone who thinks we're going to issue all kids electronic dog collars any time soon, but I do have a healthy suspicion of anything that increases the pressure ALREADY imposed on our teenagers. They're under enough pressure and have plenty of problems already.
Never forget, being a teenager sucks. Privacy and trust are valuable to the normal and quality development of kinds as people. Anything that impacts that ought to be weighed very careful and evaluated with the strictest standards of concern for the interests of the kid.
I suspect that's why they're working on it now. It's a helluva lot harder for a vendor to, ah, "embrace and extend" a protocol that was established long before the vendor realized it would be significant.
I complement the team for building this now. Solving problems way in the future is what true planning is all about.
One person's trash is another person's treasure...
I'm just happy to see that folks are thinking about this kind of stuff. Better to plan ahead. Beasides, research on this kind of issue could have immediate benefits to terrestrial networks thanks to the new ideas. I personally like the idea of the "atomic" unit of transport that contains both content and control information in one package. That could be really useful for some terrestrial applications.
I think there's an equal chance that the SC has taken this case in order to issue another ringing condemnation of this law in the hopes that Congress will finally listen and butt out. It took a good number of desegregation cases heard by the Court before the country finally got the message. This may be a similar issue. One in which the Court has made a decision and is hearing more cases to make its point ever-more clear to those in enforcement branches.
Of course, I also think that Amazon.com will eventually be profitable, so...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
If you actually check out the link for the publisher they're mostly reprinting old "positive thinking" stuff. I smell publicity stunt. Then again, it could just be a debunked, false issue.
Wait, you're telling me I've turned control of my TV over to a woman?!
;-) ;-)
AAAAAAA!!!
We're going to have to leave this planet eventually, if we want to survive as a species.
For this reasons, I support J. Richard Gott's proposal (in Time Travel in Einstein's Universe) "The goal of the human spaceflight program should be to increase our survival prospects by colonizing space."
He goes through more detail in the book (It's in the last chapter "Report from the future"), but the basic idea is that we could probably colonize Mars today, with about the same effort as we did the Moon missions. And to do so would exponentially increase our survivability as a species and probably do no ends of other good.
This isn't just an idea for America. It's an idea the entire world could get behind. It's an inspirational idea, one that is worthy of our species and civilization.
And it wouldn't just have to be funded by governments. Make donations to it tax deductible and let corporations help. This is a bet on our existance, folks. Because we only have a short while that we have the economy and political will to actually explore space (at least, since the Cold War ended). We go now, or we go never.
IMHO.
Well, I think userfriendly put it best, in that case.
There's a trade-off the RIAA and others like it (MPAA) don't realize. The kind of tactics they're using are not just driving people away from the sanctioned download sites, but they're driving people away from CDs themselves!
They're hurting their own user base. Right now, it's a very small percentage of that user base, but it's the educated and motivated portion, which is a danger to them in the long-run.
The Republican takeover of the (U.S.) Senate has at least one positive outcome - the indefinite shelving of the Hollings bill.
There really are TWO answers to the "spoiling the Earth for human habitation" question, aren't there?
One is fixing the Earth. The environment, etc.
The other is leaving.
Face it folks, mankind IS a parasite (or, as Agent Smith would say, a virus). We use up resources much faster than they can be replenished naturally. But we have the capacity to leave the planet.
And the thing is, it's a good idea, too. Overpopulation could be helped by lots of people moving off planet, the research and science involved in space programs with the stated objective of eventual human colonization of other planets would probably yield tremendous advances that would have beneficial side-effects for the environment (like the research on the bugs needed to consume waste products on a long voyage, which could probably be used to clean up landfills too).
Save the environment, colonize Mars!
This ensures that no region will be rich and other poor. Because people can migrate.
/. message board about how a global government should fix the problem, then I have issues.
There will ALWAYS be rich and there will ALWAYS be poor. The trick is to do our best to make sure the middle class holds the deciding vote between them.
(ObHistory: The entire history of western civilization, up to and including "globalization" can be summarized in one phrase: "The Rise of the Bourgeosie.")
I have a real issue with folks who have Internet connections and the ability to speak freely saying we should be transferring more of global wealth to the "poor." If that's the case, please, set an example, sell your computer and donate the $$ from your college tuition to Food For the Poor. But if your contribution to the fight against global poverty and dispair is to bitch on a
Face it folks. WE are that global government. WE are the ones who can make a difference. Set an Earnings Tax on yourself. Vote in favor of stockholder resolutions that require companies in which we hold stock to act in socially conscious ways.
Funny thing about the open, competitive system that has yielded this globalization trend. It evolves from within, through debate and action. We don't need a global government. We don't need a world revolt against "corporations." Those corporations are us folks. We hold their stock, buy their products and take their money. (And if you don't think so, please cash out your 401(k), or if you're a student, please, only go to a school that refuses corporate help.) The "system" responds to the incentives we give it every day. Change the incentives, change the system. Change our individual choices, by an act of will not coercion, change the world.
Development is never balanced. It's not driven by structure or conditions. It's driven by individual people deciding to build a better life for their children. That's it. Why is Singapore rich and peaceful, but unfree, while Uruguay, which arguably has better natural conditions for development, is slipping backwards every day? Because of individual decisions about greed and power.
Build a world your children in which your children have a better opportunity, by making small changes to the way you live your life.
Don't burn down a McDonalds for 15 minutes of fame. Because that, my friends, is hypocrisy.
Whoah, bit of a rant here.
IMHO.
How about this. What if everything is preordained, but because of its complexity our minds cannot possibly, no matter the scope of our computing and math, understand it all. Therefore, because it is defined but unknowable (i.e., just like quantum mechanics, that electron certainly is somewhere, but we are not able to know where it is by a law of nature) we can ACT like we have free will.
I think there is some kind of interaction between knowing the truth and the truth being true. So, okay, your entire fate is preordained, but you cannot get at that info, therefore, why live your life like you have no free will? The absence of the knowledge yields effects similar to true free will. Effects similar enough that you can get on with life.
Maybe. IMHO.
As a general rule, assertions that humanity is progressing and that expanded integration among people is good are considered liberal.
Note, in this context, liberal applies in both its 19th century and 20th century sense.
This is different from liberal polices (labor standards, environmental regimes, etc.) which are responses to liberal idea(l)s.
In this case, I think he has a strong argument that technology is a vital contributing factor. I'm not sure the point was brought out well enough.
/. ;-)
Given:
1. Technology increases the ability of diverse folks to communicate on a global scale, immediately and without filters. (Think Internet chat rooms, cheap global long distance, etc.)
2. Communications will illuminate differences and challenges to strongly held beliefs. (Think
3. Immediate and unfiltered communications do not provide context and explanation of practices/customs/norms that are different. Thus, we don't get why Persian women would wear headscarves and they don't get why American women would wear short shorts. It's considered an affront on both sides of the argument by a portion of the population.
4. Partially understood differences (rather than misunderstoond, I misunderstand French, but I partially understand a french person speaking English) yields conflict. (Call it the Babel Fish Axiom - "Because of this, the Babel fish has led to longer and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation." - THHGTTG)
Thus: Technology yields greater communications with less context and explanation, which yiels more conflict.
I think this is Katz's point, but a little more logically outlined.
This thesis has also been bandied about by Thomas Friedman in The Lexus and the Olive Tree.
[Warning, liberal rant below]
I believe that the forces of integration are long-term stronger and more stable than the forces of disintegration. I believe that the reason that the fringes of cultures are radicalizing is because the centers of cultures are drawing together.
I am a giant proponent of the theory that ideas clash in a marketplace of public discourse and I believe that globalization is merely expanding that marketplace, and that the discourse that results will be beneficial. We're bound to have some bumps along the road. Heck, we're probably bound to go down some blind alleys, but in the end, increased communications and integration will help us all respect each other individually and discover what makes us all human.
[End of Liberal Rant]
Of course, I also believe that the free market is best in 90% of circumstances because it forces individuals to evolve and have goals. My biggest worry is that the concept of individual freedom will be found wanting in the global discussion.
IMHO. HAND.
Well, the best stand you can make for your rights to privacy and assembly is probably two fold:
:)
1. Exercise them, by encrypting everything you send until they either make it illegal or engage in the debate effectively and attending assemblies of like minded citizens lawfully petitioning their government for redress.
2. Write a check to the ACLU or your favorite civil-rights group (EFF, whatever). Face it folks, Dollars Vote . Nothing expresses your opinion like purchasing power. So I would recommend, in effect, "purchasing" more advocacy and voice in the system. This is not to say this system is right, it is to say this system is reality. We can complain that it shouldn't be this way all we want, but unless we show a force (read: $$) that those with power respect, we're pissing in the wind.
Personally, I use PGP and have been for a while now. (My Public Key) I probably don't use it as much as I should, but it's definitely used for some conversations at work I wouldn't otherwise want seen. So far, none of my employers have had an issue. I don't - yet - encrypt everything on my home computer, but I'll probably buy something to do that in the near future. (Recommendations welcome!)
My company actually mandated everyone get encryption (in our case, Entrust) on our laptops before we went on a project in Asia last year. Turns out, the clients we were doing the work for would attempt to hack into our computers while we we're using their network. They dove into some folks' laptops and read/copied email, files, etc. and then used the information when negotiating with us! We started encrypting everything related to the project before going on site and the client became a bit easier to deal with. (No comments on why they remained our client, please, I still don't know the answer to that one! Decision not in my hands.)
I mention this because I think there's a possibility to make privacy at an personal level a common cause between corporations and individuals. We just need to make the case loudly and effectively. (which brings me back to my support your local civil rights organization point
One thing that occured to me is that it makes a heckuva lot more sense to insert already-encrypted messages into the images than straight text. Wouldn't a PGP message field, for example, look even more like random crap within an image than it does in messages already? Why not PGP encrypt the message and THEN insert it into an image.
I would bet that pre-encrypted messages are more likely to be found in images than non-encrypted ones. This idea plays not only into the Password critique cited above but also into the fact that even if someone FOUND the message in the image, they probably couldn't get at it if the PGP encryption was strong enough.
Have I missed something and the study already considered this possibility? I didn't see it in that article.
Of course, this idea would only give more ammo to folks looking to regulate the use of encryption.
And you still take the time to read and post to /.
QED.
;-)
Part of the problem with the "just get out" philosophy is where are we supposed to go? Microsoft? AT&T?
So I guess you don't know any Med students?
They're ALL Stupid or Insane...well, not stupid, but DEFINITELY Insane.
From the article:
;-)
"We asked Dr. Steiner where he expected the Electronic Kilogram to "go." He replied, "Consistent results from experiments like this could show that quantum and atomic theories are correct and consistent. Or not. "
Let's redefine a kilogram to add more uncertainty to the pursuit of science!
How many people in your corner of the world?
How many different cultures?
How much land?
Small, homogeneous places to not global exemplars make.
Except in the case of Manuel Noriega, he was running the country that surrounded the single most important piece of geography to U.S. strategic interests - the Canal. So, when you run drugs AND control the canal, yeah, then you're gonna get stepped on. We've been doing that in this hemisphere for about a hundred and fifty years, so it's not like it was a surprise.
There is a national interest in being careful with the Internet, when you consider the fact that the Internet, by it's nature, makes the entire concept of a 'nation' a little less secure. So projecting your laws outwards is a means of protecting your national idendity in the face of external pressures you have NO OTHER WAY to resist.
So the question we're really asking here may have more to do with the decision to resist outside influences than with extraterritorial laws. I think that folks on the 'Net are more likely to say 'let the external influences be!' Problem is, most people - yes MOST PEOPLE - don't agree with that. And if there's no other way to resist an outside influence than assert extraterritoriality, then extraterritoriality will be asserted, and supported by the majority, even in a democracy.
IMHO.
While we're all talking about potential military misuse of the technology and the destructive power of antimatter, aren't we overlooking one of the coolest things about this research? The second page of the article talked about one of the side-effects of antimatter production was the creation of O-15 which is used in PET scans.
Storage of antimatter is a challenging task, but reaps several benefits. One of which is the generation of O15, a radioisotope used for Positron Emission Tomagraphy (PET) of the human brain. Currently, only certain research hospitals across the world have the ability to create Oxygen-15. Due to its portability, a "radioisotope generator" antimatter trap may be transported to more remote areas for patients who cannot reach these hospitals. A second medical application concerns antiproton radiotherapy of tumors. The NASA Penning trap is being designed with these medical applications in mind.
This fact would potentially offset some of the negatives that antimatter has.
It amazes me the wonderful side-benefits we get from basic research and space research sometimes. Who would have thought that research on propulsion would provide an alternative means to create a rare but medically necessary element in significant quantities?
Yes, they're not adults, but their not toddlers either. Teaching kids that it's okay to be monitored in HS makes them more willing to accept monitoring AFTER HS, and that's kinda scary. I have a hard enough time coping with the idea that my company can monitor my websurfing (like it's doing now) without having been taught that that's okay while I was in HS.
One useful thing about this, however, it that it might increase the accountability of parents and school employees together. Parents can see what teachers have to go through with rowdy students, and similarly parents could see what classes are deemed to be boring by students.
So there's two sides to this, as with everything. It increases accountability but decreases a sense of trust.
For the record, I'm not someone who thinks we're going to issue all kids electronic dog collars any time soon, but I do have a healthy suspicion of anything that increases the pressure ALREADY imposed on our teenagers. They're under enough pressure and have plenty of problems already.
Never forget, being a teenager sucks. Privacy and trust are valuable to the normal and quality development of kinds as people. Anything that impacts that ought to be weighed very careful and evaluated with the strictest standards of concern for the interests of the kid.
IMHO.
Here's a PR PDF on NASA's Deep Space Network, which is likely what this IPN Bundle protocol would first run over.
http://www.cdscc.nasa.gov/pdf/dsn.pdf
I suspect that's why they're working on it now. It's a helluva lot harder for a vendor to, ah, "embrace and extend" a protocol that was established long before the vendor realized it would be significant.
;-)
I complement the team for building this now. Solving problems way in the future is what true planning is all about.
Now, about Social Security...
One person's trash is another person's treasure...
I'm just happy to see that folks are thinking about this kind of stuff. Better to plan ahead. Beasides, research on this kind of issue could have immediate benefits to terrestrial networks thanks to the new ideas. I personally like the idea of the "atomic" unit of transport that contains both content and control information in one package. That could be really useful for some terrestrial applications.
Personally, I'm all about keeping porn legal because it's just about the only thing keeping Exodus, Digex and the like in business.
Porn = profitable web hosting.
As Douglas Adams (may he rest in peace) once noticed, all media pretty much started with porn and kinda progressed from there.
Paradox !-)
I think there's an equal chance that the SC has taken this case in order to issue another ringing condemnation of this law in the hopes that Congress will finally listen and butt out. It took a good number of desegregation cases heard by the Court before the country finally got the message. This may be a similar issue. One in which the Court has made a decision and is hearing more cases to make its point ever-more clear to those in enforcement branches.
;-)
Of course, I also think that Amazon.com will eventually be profitable, so...
Paradox !-)