Tab groups is also the primary reason I use FF instead of Chrome. if they get rid of them, I'll have no compelling reason to choose FF.
Also many people don't use them because they don't know they exist. I've taught people how to use them, and they were happy after that. You especially have to change the default configuration to remember the last tabs open to appreciate them.
The last time I posted how Cisco uses their routers to sell our privacy people responded that they were just complying with laws, which I question deeply because of the EXTENT to which they improve and market their eavesdropping capability, and how they constantly boast having a lead in the market in this area, appearing to go far beyond the law.
Now we have this? Really? Someone care to argue they are just complying with CALEA to avoid being sent to guatanamo bay?
You can argue however you want that it is right or wrong. But, it is not theft. That is, you do not deprive another person of access to their possession.
I've always hated theft. It is one of the 10 commandments. I grew up learning to hate it because people stole from me. When someone steals your bike, your wallet, or other personal possessions, it hurts. You are now deprived of it, while someone else is selling it for $10 of crack. Stealing hurts innocent people. I continue to hate stealing.
But, if I paint my bike blue, and my next door neighbor, seeing that, paints his bike blue, he didn't steal my bike. I can call him a "copy cat". But, I still get to ride my bike. I just won't be the only one on the block with a blue bike.
Yes, we all know the theory of lost sales. But, we all know that copying information does not mean that the person would of purchased that copy of that information if they had not of copied it against the will of someone claiming ownership of that information.
Thus, I lose respect for anyone who tries to insist that copying information is a violation of the 10 commands along with "though shall not kill" and "though shell not commit adultery". Our laws do not support that claim, and we should do more to discredit those who make it.
Don't get me wrong. I do not advocate copyright infringement. I am just tired of hearing people try to confuse people into thinking that copying information is hurting people like stealing real physical property does and is a violation of one of the 10 commandments.
After Cisco put back doors in all their equipment, why would anyone who knows this ever consider buying a tablet or any device with plenty of alternatives?
I'd love to believe that like Sun's dramatic turnaround after years of being the enemy of open source, Microsoft was doing the same thing. And, to be sure, Sun did their turnaround, and IBM in the early 90s as well, out of desperation to get back on course when they were clearly headed in the wrong direction and losing out on new things because of it.
But, in Microsoft's case, all I see is case-by-case desperation that lacks the overall cultural change that IBM and Sun went through. Their browser was losing market share, hated by many, and stood a high chance of losing out on new things like HTML 5. So, yes, they have BEGUN to embrace open standards here. Yet, Silverlight appears to have all but died, not because of a change in Microsoft's morale stance on open standards, but simply because it could not gain critical market share with it. They could not overcome Adobe, and HTML 5 puts both Flash and Silverlight at risk.
Then there are moves like this that open source a part of.NET. Have they, like Sun, completely turned around and become a huge friend of the open source community? Or, are they trying to save something that currently has little chance of survival in the Cloud, which is being primarily built on Linux and languages that run on it, notably Java.
So far, all I see is case-by-case moves of desperation rather than the wholehearted change that turns them into true friends of open standards and open source. Statements they have made to support open standards and open source have been by an individual here, or there, and not official representation of the core values or culture of the organization as a whole. Thus, I consider these statements to be even weaker indicators of change than moves like a change to use an Apache license.
At best, I am cautiously optimistic. The fact that they would even consider the Apache license is a miracle when contrasted to their historical vehemence towards open standards licenses. Clearly, they are not AS EVIL as they were. But, are they the new IBM and Sun? I don't think so. Are they headed in that direction? I hope so. But, they still have a long way to go before that happens.
When Best Buy can sell a computer with Linux on it without violating a contract with Microsoft because Microsoft saw the error in their monopolous anti-Linux contracts, then I'll reconsider whether or not they are evil. When Microsoft completely opens up.NET, putting all its parts under an open source license and permitting all stakeholders to play a role in its evolution, permitting it to run equally well on Linux as it does on Windows, I'll reconsider their place in our ecosystem. We'll know when this has happened when I can watch Netflix on Linux, and not because Netflix was able to replace Silverlight.
"with no evidence for"? How would you know, being unwilling to hear the controversy? You're presuming to completely understand the counter-argument without hearing it. I find it interesting that so many people here are presuming it will be a religious discussion, and consider the assertions in the theories of evolution to be unquestionable, with any attempt to scrutinize to be coming from a lower intelligence (which is a purely arrogant assumption.)
There are purely scientific discussions about the weaknesses of the theories of evolution, such as discussion of the unproven assumptions our conclusions are often based on.
I've learned that as a species, our brains are not only prone to believe assumptions, we practically require them to do tasks like drive a car in the night in a blizzard. I suspect the average person makes a minimum of 100-1000 false assumptions per day.
This nature of ours is part of the reason we've have been very wrong about scientific claims in the past. It baffles me how many people claim to be scientific, yet consider the assumptions used to draw scientific conclusions to be unquestionably holy, clearly directing their need to possess faith into what they believe to be scientific conclusions of a higher intelligence (arrogance).
For example, how do you know that radioactive decay rates have been constant throughout time, one of the presumptions built into the dating of fossils? Remember when we were taught that all the oil and gas had to be created by plants because hydrocarbons could only come from living organisms? Is that mathematically possible? Have you measured the quantity of plants required for this assumption to be true? These assumptions have been taught in our schools very recently as unquestionable truths.
I'm pretty sure the letter to Nigerians, written from someone trying get their money back, promised trillions of dollars in bonds to be paid as soon as a small deposit of plutonium was deposited to help pay a lawyer who could sign over the bonds.
Don't forget, these are raised stripes, not alternating colors. And the flag is in a box, so don't count the upper and lower thin lines.
That said, the bigger issue is the stripes are staggered, which is very uncommon for the 48 state period. That alone convinces me that the box in this photo is probably counterfeit.
I just find it interesting that there is a history of these boxes, particularly in the Philippines, dating back to at least the 1990s. In online discussions, there is a consensus that there are a lot of "fakes" out there. But, it is not clear whether or not these were copies of real originals, or just an incredibly elaborate fraud of unprecedented scale. Either way, I'd love to know the truth behind the origin of the boxes.
But, the staggered stars does not coincide with the common 48 state pattern of that time.
Based on what I've read, there are either lot of counterfeits of a real thing, or this was one incredibly engineered large scale counterfeit. These boxes have been found from all over the world recently, with highest concentrations in the Philippines, with people digging them up in the 1990s. There are quite a few stories to go with them, some more plausible than others. Yet, I cannot find any solid scientific evidence placing the origin of these boxes in history, other than when they were dug up or acquired and the condition they were in.
Given how interesting this could be even if it all the boxes are fraudulent due to its large scale and long history, I think this is worth trying to understand better.
The conspiracy theory is not what is interesting. It is the photos of these boxes and their contents that have been on the Internet for years now. The question Zero Hedge raises is why would they go through the trouble of creating counterfeit boxes? You can't cash the boxes, only the bonds.
.
It would be interesting to have independent scientific authentication on the boxes and their contents. Then, if they happen to originate in 1934, try to discover the story around them. Otherwise, if science proves they were created recently, we can quickly dismiss them as fraud. Right now, we have no idea how they determined they are fraudulent. There is also no evidence they were being used in a transaction, only conspiracy theory purported by the Italian authorities who admitted they found them in storage.
Now that the tree is dead, the question becomes, will there be anything left we can use to study its rings to build our scientific knowledge of changes in the past 3500 years. Unfortunately, the story itself does not cover this angle.
Let's count how many times per year a person in an area represented by a member of congress goes through one of these machines. Then, for each of these occasions, let's have the congressman also go through it. So, if, for example, we calculate that people in a representative's district will go through one of these 10,000 times in 2012, let's have that congressman be subject to this radiation 10,000 times.
We can have it do it while the congressman sleeps and position them where a congressman often walks, such as outside their bedroom door, so it will not present any inconvenience to our representatives. We can also increase the radiation by a multiple to decrease the number of times they need to be radiated, further decreasing the time they need to sleep or walk through one of these machines.
Of course, we can make sure that only people within that congressman's district can view the images, because we want to respect his/her privacy.
I love your post. It describes the theory I've held, which is the reason I've been skeptical that people are the primary cause of an increase in temperatures. I've always suspected that climate contained many cycles of many lengths since before El Nino and La Nina were discovered, and suspected that some of these trends span hundreds of years. The simple pattern I've described to people as an example of how these trends can occur in nature is the positive feedback loop that decreasing annual snow coverage causes to increasing temperatures due to the reflective nature of snow, and how this can cause temperatures to increase naturally for years. Here is another example of natural positive feedback.
Since I began to observe this theory in the 80s, I've seen increasing evidence that it is true, including, like you said, a 2500 year study of tree rings. Thus, as I observed the increasing emotion over the theories that (a) global warning is primarily caused by people (anthropogenic) and (b) that it will have dire consequences that we can prevent, I've been looking for evidence that the science behind these theories contradicts the theories that our climate has its own cycles, including long-term cycles, that can account for the long-term trends.
Here is what I've observed the most:
1> Many people look at temperature trends and ASSUME they are caused by people, using these trends to "prove" that people are causing global warning. This discrediting position has become predominant, and can even be found in posts in this thread above. This has made it difficult to have and objective scientific discussion of climate change, and created an atmosphere of distrust towards the concept of "consensus". Yes, there are people, and there are scientists. But, I am amazed at how many people claimed to be scientists, yet still could demonstrated a belief in an obvious assumption.
2> There is a lot of emotion in the discussion by those who BELIEVE that global warming will lead to great disaster if to do not do something dramatic right away.
3> Many can in one sentence claim to be very scientific, then in another sentence bash anyone who questions whether or not (a) disaster is coming, (b) people are the cause of the coming disasters, and (c) people can, at great cost, prevent the disasters.
4> Most of the evidence that people are the cause of climate change is attributed to computational models we are supposed to blindly trust without understanding or viewing, despite the fact that these models disagree with each other, and most of the scientists working on these models admit that the unknown variables are still very large, including many things about physics, chemistry and climate we are only beginning to understand.
5> The vast majority of people who claim that the models are the reason to conclude that the climate theories are beyond skepticism know virtually nothing about the calculations and the data fed into them, or have taken the time to look for weaknesses in the models, such as needed improvements in understanding natural cycles, feedback loops and how the climate responds to change.
Looking that this evidence, I'm forced to conclude that:
1> while global warming could be the trend for the next century and there may be anthropogenic causes behind at least part of it, a religion has formed around global warming, creating a culture the demonizes those who hold skepticism, assuming they are just ignoring the facts, and cannot possibly understand "the science".
2> if I am to find solid evidence that falsifies the theory that our climate change is due to natural long-term cycles, I'm going to have to work really hard to sift through the noise created by #1-5 above.
To be sure, while the scientific evidence supporting theories of anthropogenic global warming does not falsify my theories about natural climate cycles, it does cause me to put it in balance with the possibity that people are impacting climate:
1> there are gases that have a greenhouse effect.
2> models have a partial consensus on climate trends.
I was just saying the other day that the Bible could of been harder to create if someone claimed broadcast rights when Jesus spoke to crowds, not to mention copyright restrictions with no one able to locate the authors or figure out who inherited their rights when they died. So, perhaps this is in line with Christianity.
I changed the boiler plate text in the email to say the following, which I believe has more of a punch:
_____________________
I am a constituent and I urge you to reject the Internet Blacklist Bills (PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House).
In addition to the danger these bills pose to Internet security, free speech online, and innovation, I am deeply concerned by the risk that these unprecedented assaults on foreign entities will be interpreted as a provocation of war, particularly by leaders who are already hostile towards US policies, such as Putin of Russia. This will be heavily compounded as this inevitably leads to harming sites that many will view as innocent victims of this highly subjective process and clearly biased intent towards increasing corporate profits in Hollywood.
This bill will also re-enforce the image that congress is purchased and own by corporate interests.
Lastly, due to the sweeping level of censorship, this bill will popularize methods of overcoming censorship to the US, technology that is usually reserved for hardship regimes. This will certainly make it difficult for the intelligence community to find real crimes, as their chatter becomes increasingly co-mingled with mainstream on-line anti-censorship technology.
The Internet Blacklist Legislation is dangerous and short-sighted, and I urge you to join Senator Wyden and other members of Congress, such as Representatives Lofgren, Eshoo and Issa, in opposing it.
_________________
1> Cover an entire wall (no more repainting or physical wall paper!!!), while supporting touch.
2> Be able to act as a screen to any wireless device. Why can't you "project" your Android to your TV.
Regarding content: all TV needs to be on-demand, except for live events, of course. We're progressing here.
When we accomplish these things, then, perhaps, we can say we're done improving the TV.
Of course, at this point, we might want to consider burning books, perhaps converting our fire departments into book burning units.
Individuals might initially send through secure SMTP. But, from that point on, I don't think the relays will use it. Thus, you can securely drop it off at your ISP or whatever SMTP you're email client is configured to use. But, to transport it to the destinations in the TO/CC/BCC addresses, it has to relay it. At this point, it will likely use port 25.
That is very true. I believe there is an opportunity to anonymize communications via P2P technology. Sometimes, the best way to hide a sound is to create lots of noise. When all of our direct communications become meaningless due to the randomness of P2P, and our intended communications require a random number of P2P hops, and the process is protected with encryption, it becomes very difficult to discern the intended communications graph from the random P2P one.
Slashdot Mirror
This is going to keep the CIA hacking team busy. So many new products to hack.
Tab groups is also the primary reason I use FF instead of Chrome. if they get rid of them, I'll have no compelling reason to choose FF. Also many people don't use them because they don't know they exist. I've taught people how to use them, and they were happy after that. You especially have to change the default configuration to remember the last tabs open to appreciate them.
I'm proud to say that we host all of our servers on Centos! It is the best free server OS out there, IMHO.
The last time I posted how Cisco uses their routers to sell our privacy people responded that they were just complying with laws, which I question deeply because of the EXTENT to which they improve and market their eavesdropping capability, and how they constantly boast having a lead in the market in this area, appearing to go far beyond the law.
Now we have this? Really? Someone care to argue they are just complying with CALEA to avoid being sent to guatanamo bay?
I've always hated theft. It is one of the 10 commandments. I grew up learning to hate it because people stole from me. When someone steals your bike, your wallet, or other personal possessions, it hurts. You are now deprived of it, while someone else is selling it for $10 of crack. Stealing hurts innocent people. I continue to hate stealing.
But, if I paint my bike blue, and my next door neighbor, seeing that, paints his bike blue, he didn't steal my bike. I can call him a "copy cat". But, I still get to ride my bike. I just won't be the only one on the block with a blue bike.
Yes, we all know the theory of lost sales. But, we all know that copying information does not mean that the person would of purchased that copy of that information if they had not of copied it against the will of someone claiming ownership of that information.
Thus, I lose respect for anyone who tries to insist that copying information is a violation of the 10 commands along with "though shall not kill" and "though shell not commit adultery". Our laws do not support that claim, and we should do more to discredit those who make it.
Don't get me wrong. I do not advocate copyright infringement. I am just tired of hearing people try to confuse people into thinking that copying information is hurting people like stealing real physical property does and is a violation of one of the 10 commandments.
What is a Word Perfect (WP) phone?
After Cisco put back doors in all their equipment, why would anyone who knows this ever consider buying a tablet or any device with plenty of alternatives?
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/57070
But, in Microsoft's case, all I see is case-by-case desperation that lacks the overall cultural change that IBM and Sun went through. Their browser was losing market share, hated by many, and stood a high chance of losing out on new things like HTML 5. So, yes, they have BEGUN to embrace open standards here. Yet, Silverlight appears to have all but died, not because of a change in Microsoft's morale stance on open standards, but simply because it could not gain critical market share with it. They could not overcome Adobe, and HTML 5 puts both Flash and Silverlight at risk.
Then there are moves like this that open source a part of .NET. Have they, like Sun, completely turned around and become a huge friend of the open source community? Or, are they trying to save something that currently has little chance of survival in the Cloud, which is being primarily built on Linux and languages that run on it, notably Java.
So far, all I see is case-by-case moves of desperation rather than the wholehearted change that turns them into true friends of open standards and open source. Statements they have made to support open standards and open source have been by an individual here, or there, and not official representation of the core values or culture of the organization as a whole. Thus, I consider these statements to be even weaker indicators of change than moves like a change to use an Apache license.
At best, I am cautiously optimistic. The fact that they would even consider the Apache license is a miracle when contrasted to their historical vehemence towards open standards licenses. Clearly, they are not AS EVIL as they were. But, are they the new IBM and Sun? I don't think so. Are they headed in that direction? I hope so. But, they still have a long way to go before that happens.
When Best Buy can sell a computer with Linux on it without violating a contract with Microsoft because Microsoft saw the error in their monopolous anti-Linux contracts, then I'll reconsider whether or not they are evil. When Microsoft completely opens up .NET, putting all its parts under an open source license and permitting all stakeholders to play a role in its evolution, permitting it to run equally well on Linux as it does on Windows, I'll reconsider their place in our ecosystem. We'll know when this has happened when I can watch Netflix on Linux, and not because Netflix was able to replace Silverlight.
There are purely scientific discussions about the weaknesses of the theories of evolution, such as discussion of the unproven assumptions our conclusions are often based on.
I've learned that as a species, our brains are not only prone to believe assumptions, we practically require them to do tasks like drive a car in the night in a blizzard. I suspect the average person makes a minimum of 100-1000 false assumptions per day.
This nature of ours is part of the reason we've have been very wrong about scientific claims in the past. It baffles me how many people claim to be scientific, yet consider the assumptions used to draw scientific conclusions to be unquestionably holy, clearly directing their need to possess faith into what they believe to be scientific conclusions of a higher intelligence (arrogance).
For example, how do you know that radioactive decay rates have been constant throughout time, one of the presumptions built into the dating of fossils? Remember when we were taught that all the oil and gas had to be created by plants because hydrocarbons could only come from living organisms? Is that mathematically possible? Have you measured the quantity of plants required for this assumption to be true? These assumptions have been taught in our schools very recently as unquestionable truths.
http://io9.com/5619954/the-sun-is-changing-the-rate-of-radioactive-decay-and-breaking-the-rules-of-chemistry
... May the force be... uh... ummmm... so, sorry!"
I'm pretty sure the letter to Nigerians, written from someone trying get their money back, promised trillions of dollars in bonds to be paid as soon as a small deposit of plutonium was deposited to help pay a lawyer who could sign over the bonds.
correction: the bigger issue is the STARS are staggered
Don't forget, these are raised stripes, not alternating colors. And the flag is in a box, so don't count the upper and lower thin lines.
That said, the bigger issue is the stripes are staggered, which is very uncommon for the 48 state period. That alone convinces me that the box in this photo is probably counterfeit.
I just find it interesting that there is a history of these boxes, particularly in the Philippines, dating back to at least the 1990s. In online discussions, there is a consensus that there are a lot of "fakes" out there. But, it is not clear whether or not these were copies of real originals, or just an incredibly elaborate fraud of unprecedented scale. Either way, I'd love to know the truth behind the origin of the boxes.
But, the staggered stars does not coincide with the common 48 state pattern of that time.
Based on what I've read, there are either lot of counterfeits of a real thing, or this was one incredibly engineered large scale counterfeit. These boxes have been found from all over the world recently, with highest concentrations in the Philippines, with people digging them up in the 1990s. There are quite a few stories to go with them, some more plausible than others. Yet, I cannot find any solid scientific evidence placing the origin of these boxes in history, other than when they were dug up or acquired and the condition they were in.
Given how interesting this could be even if it all the boxes are fraudulent due to its large scale and long history, I think this is worth trying to understand better.
That's what I thought. But, the more I dig on the boxes, the more historical they appear to be. Here is an interesting thread discussing them: http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php?action=printpage;topic=2598.0
.
It would be interesting to have independent scientific authentication on the boxes and their contents. Then, if they happen to originate in 1934, try to discover the story around them. Otherwise, if science proves they were created recently, we can quickly dismiss them as fraud. Right now, we have no idea how they determined they are fraudulent. There is also no evidence they were being used in a transaction, only conspiracy theory purported by the Italian authorities who admitted they found them in storage.
Zerohedge highlights interesting photos: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/why-were-trillions-fake-bonds-held-chicago-fed-crates
http://www.priweb.org/globalchange/climatechange/studyingcc/scc_01.html
We can have it do it while the congressman sleeps and position them where a congressman often walks, such as outside their bedroom door, so it will not present any inconvenience to our representatives. We can also increase the radiation by a multiple to decrease the number of times they need to be radiated, further decreasing the time they need to sleep or walk through one of these machines.
Of course, we can make sure that only people within that congressman's district can view the images, because we want to respect his/her privacy.
What do you think?
Since I began to observe this theory in the 80s, I've seen increasing evidence that it is true, including, like you said, a 2500 year study of tree rings. Thus, as I observed the increasing emotion over the theories that (a) global warning is primarily caused by people (anthropogenic) and (b) that it will have dire consequences that we can prevent, I've been looking for evidence that the science behind these theories contradicts the theories that our climate has its own cycles, including long-term cycles, that can account for the long-term trends.
Here is what I've observed the most:
1> Many people look at temperature trends and ASSUME they are caused by people, using these trends to "prove" that people are causing global warning. This discrediting position has become predominant, and can even be found in posts in this thread above. This has made it difficult to have and objective scientific discussion of climate change, and created an atmosphere of distrust towards the concept of "consensus". Yes, there are people, and there are scientists. But, I am amazed at how many people claimed to be scientists, yet still could demonstrated a belief in an obvious assumption.
2> There is a lot of emotion in the discussion by those who BELIEVE that global warming will lead to great disaster if to do not do something dramatic right away.
3> Many can in one sentence claim to be very scientific, then in another sentence bash anyone who questions whether or not (a) disaster is coming, (b) people are the cause of the coming disasters, and (c) people can, at great cost, prevent the disasters.
4> Most of the evidence that people are the cause of climate change is attributed to computational models we are supposed to blindly trust without understanding or viewing, despite the fact that these models disagree with each other, and most of the scientists working on these models admit that the unknown variables are still very large, including many things about physics, chemistry and climate we are only beginning to understand.
5> The vast majority of people who claim that the models are the reason to conclude that the climate theories are beyond skepticism know virtually nothing about the calculations and the data fed into them, or have taken the time to look for weaknesses in the models, such as needed improvements in understanding natural cycles, feedback loops and how the climate responds to change.
Looking that this evidence, I'm forced to conclude that:
1> while global warming could be the trend for the next century and there may be anthropogenic causes behind at least part of it, a religion has formed around global warming, creating a culture the demonizes those who hold skepticism, assuming they are just ignoring the facts, and cannot possibly understand "the science".
2> if I am to find solid evidence that falsifies the theory that our climate change is due to natural long-term cycles, I'm going to have to work really hard to sift through the noise created by #1-5 above.
To be sure, while the scientific evidence supporting theories of anthropogenic global warming does not falsify my theories about natural climate cycles, it does cause me to put it in balance with the possibity that people are impacting climate:
1> there are gases that have a greenhouse effect.
2> models have a partial consensus on climate trends.
I was just saying the other day that the Bible could of been harder to create if someone claimed broadcast rights when Jesus spoke to crowds, not to mention copyright restrictions with no one able to locate the authors or figure out who inherited their rights when they died. So, perhaps this is in line with Christianity.
I changed the boiler plate text in the email to say the following, which I believe has more of a punch:
_____________________
I am a constituent and I urge you to reject the Internet Blacklist Bills (PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House).
In addition to the danger these bills pose to Internet security, free speech online, and innovation, I am deeply concerned by the risk that these unprecedented assaults on foreign entities will be interpreted as a provocation of war, particularly by leaders who are already hostile towards US policies, such as Putin of Russia. This will be heavily compounded as this inevitably leads to harming sites that many will view as innocent victims of this highly subjective process and clearly biased intent towards increasing corporate profits in Hollywood.
This bill will also re-enforce the image that congress is purchased and own by corporate interests.
Lastly, due to the sweeping level of censorship, this bill will popularize methods of overcoming censorship to the US, technology that is usually reserved for hardship regimes. This will certainly make it difficult for the intelligence community to find real crimes, as their chatter becomes increasingly co-mingled with mainstream on-line anti-censorship technology.
The Internet Blacklist Legislation is dangerous and short-sighted, and I urge you to join Senator Wyden and other members of Congress, such as Representatives Lofgren, Eshoo and Issa, in opposing it.
_________________
1> Cover an entire wall (no more repainting or physical wall paper!!!), while supporting touch. 2> Be able to act as a screen to any wireless device. Why can't you "project" your Android to your TV.
Regarding content: all TV needs to be on-demand, except for live events, of course. We're progressing here.
When we accomplish these things, then, perhaps, we can say we're done improving the TV.
Of course, at this point, we might want to consider burning books, perhaps converting our fire departments into book burning units.
Individuals might initially send through secure SMTP. But, from that point on, I don't think the relays will use it. Thus, you can securely drop it off at your ISP or whatever SMTP you're email client is configured to use. But, to transport it to the destinations in the TO/CC/BCC addresses, it has to relay it. At this point, it will likely use port 25.
That is very true. I believe there is an opportunity to anonymize communications via P2P technology. Sometimes, the best way to hide a sound is to create lots of noise. When all of our direct communications become meaningless due to the randomness of P2P, and our intended communications require a random number of P2P hops, and the process is protected with encryption, it becomes very difficult to discern the intended communications graph from the random P2P one.