If people actually followed your line of thinking the species would die out because interpersonal relationships are a huge risk. The biological fact is that something has to be high reward for large numbers of people to accept high risk.
This isn't about pointlessly maiming factory workers because the factory owner is too cheap to install hand guards, this is about the absolute scientific fact that people grow and develop by progressing through tasks of escalating difficulty and risk.
You can't coddle kids until they finish university and then expect them to be functional adults. Instead of making mistakes and growing when the risks are pretty low (falling out of a tree in the playground) they will make mistakes that have much more serious consequences (speeding and other dangerous driving, hard drugs, abusive relationships).
Yes, but the answer to this isn't to classify all data as ultra-double-dog-secret. Especially when the people with the access to that data are low level guys who could easily be bought out by any half-decent espionage agency (eg air-gapped systems don't stop a disgruntled intelligence analyst).
Classifying material doesn't matter when any of a few hundred thousand people with access could be co-opted or the information could be garnered from public sources or simple observation.
Considering how often Western intelligence agencies were infected with Soviet agents during the Cold War I wouldn't trust the traditional security model anyway. From my experience of operating in a high espionage environment (EvE:Online, where people will create a fake identity and spend months playing it in order to take revenge) my opinion is that the only sure method is to presume your plans are compromised or soon to be compromised if more then one person knows them.
Low-level classification is more about security theatre (ie making the bosses feel safe) then actual useful counter-espionage.
"Restricted", "sensitive", and "secret" material is low level. That is the level of material that everyone in the military and government bureaucracy has access to. It is the sort of stuff that is either not very sensitive (ie enemy agents could figure it out easily just from observing a base or similar) or has only a small window in which it is useful (ie by the time the enemy could react it would be too late).
These days with the adversarial government/media relationship tons of material is classified like this just to discourage the media from baking scandals, and to prevent citizens from finding out about legitimate scandals (at least in the short term).
What was accessed in this case was probably some boring inter-NATO administrative emails, with the most interesting stuff being up-coming exercises and the like.
The stuff that Wikileaks released that inspired this spate of hackings WAS from an air-gapped computer.
What is even interesting about "social" media? It is the same stuff people have done since there have been people except now someone is getting paid to provide this "service". Chatting on Facebook isn't conceptually any different from chatting on the phone, or at the cafe. Meeting strangers easily is why people used to go to clubs or dances etc.
"Social media" is just what people have always done, except now you have to give away personal information and watch ads.
The communication revolution now allows us to do these types things more easily and at greater distances then before, but the jury is still out on whether this is good for individuals or society (mainly due to effects like people restricting their social circle and sources of news to people that have the same biases and beliefs).
This is why the TSA is a joke. The authorities try to paint TSA agents as if they are all highly trained FBI agents or something, but they are low skill rent-a-cops with little educational requirement.
Drug runners subvert airport personnel and police all the time (and most contraband in prisons is smuggled in by the guards). Are we expected to believe that such a tactic is too dishonourable for terrorists or something? And the best bit is that the terrorists can just pretend to be drug runners and not even have to worry about finding an agent with similar ideology.
The MAFIAA are seeing their revenue drop because they are no longer the gate keepers to popular entertainment. Instead of buying CD's of artists signed to members of the RIAA, people can buy songs from tens of thousands of other artists who would never get signed by the big studios. Instead of watching a movie people are watching YouTube videos, chatting via social media, or playing games.
The reason the MAFIAA want to lock down the Internet and PC's isn't to stop piracy, it is to get back their position as gatekeepers of popular entertainment. How can they keep tricking artists into signing contracts that will see the artist get cents on the dollar, if the artist can simply market themselves via the Internet?
It is like Microsoft getting money for every Android device sold. If you can't compete get the government to hand you monopoly rent.
Conspiracy theorists are impossible to argue with. No matter what evidence you show to the kooks they will just rationalise it away. Conspiracy theory derives from an inability to accept the chaotic nature of reality, that "random" events outside the control of any central power can utterly destroy someone's life. The belief in conspiracy theory is a belief that SOMETHING is actually in control: THE GOVERNMENT!
And if THE GOVERNMENT could just have its secrets revealed, or if it was destroyed, then all would be right with the world and peace and justice would reign.
It doesn't matter if they are intentional. From local coverage about the "issue" here in Australia I think certain groups are trying to push the idea that having unsecured Wi-Fi is criminal negligence at best.
The articles are amusing in that they make it seem like unsecured Wi-Fi is mostly used for illegal activities and then say that having unsecured Wi-Fi could land you in trouble for what guests do through your link. If the first is true then it can used as a defence in the second instance. Especially as more and more judges are realising that having IP logs doesn't prove much and dismissing such cases.
The recent surge in stories about this "issue" is imo a reaction to such developments.
Yes, the US is in the running for number one supporter of state sponsored terrorism. Though normally they do it via CIA directed proxies rather then openly like the Russians.
Exactly. If the NCAA had of alleged the Univ. of North Carolina had failed to 'adequately and consistently monitor student athletes via phone taps and private investigators' they would be regarded as insane. Sure what the athletes do could embarrass the university or the NCAA, but that is only cause to kick offenders off teams, not have them tracked and monitored.
Sports teams and universities have no duty to ACTIVELY monitor athletes (or other students) to prevent violations. They only have a moral (and sometimes legal) duty to deal openly and fairly when violations come to their attention.
If they can't trust a particular athlete to not do illegal drugs and have sex with under-age teens or something that person should just not be on the team.
No, a terrorist is someone who TERRORISES through acts or threats of violence against CIVILIAN targets to achieve political change. If someone plants a command detonated mine and uses it to blow up a military convoy that is a legitimate act of war. If they use the same mine to blow up a school bus full of kids that is an act of terrorism.
The definition IS CLEAR and HAS BEEN CLEAR since it came about. The "terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side" is bullshit propagated by people who support violence against civilians as a means of effecting political change.
The insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq get called terrorists because they fucking go after civilian targets as well as military ones. And yes most nations have at some point in time committed acts which now would be called terrorism. Instead of white-washing this by perverting the meaning of "terrorism" we need to own up to it and stop that shit.
WTF do people think all the START things are? It stands for STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The US and Russia have been cutting back their arsenals for more than twenty years. The reason there is huge upcoming expenditures being budgeted for is because the US nuclear arsenal is pretty much late 1980's vintage. Nuclear warheads don't stay viable forever, and planes and submarines wear out. Most of the expenditure is going to be on the planes and submarines, not Nuclear warheads, and those planes and submarines have non-nuclear warfare use
The B-52 was designed as a nuclear bomber, but has probably dropped more conventional ordnance then all other aircraft combined ever. Most SSBNs around the world have been adapted to be capable of firing either non-nuclear IMRBM or non-nuclear cruise missiles. They aren't just sitting under the ice with a cargo of nukes waiting for the Russkis to push the button.
The expensive thing isn't nuclear weapons, it is launch platforms and manpower. If you start cutting those heavily you may as well cut the carrier fleets and a few army divisions as well and accept not having the ability to fight three different wars at once.
The state controls everything and tells you what to think.
But that isn't happening, and is the smartest part of the Authoritarians plan. As shown by the example of the Soviet systems, people revolt when you overtly restrict their day-to-day choices. The Authoritarians, that have been chipping away at the US Constitution since the ink dried, have realised this and so only grab control on the macro-level.
It is much easier to control a society where the proles think they have liberty, but are feed propaganda by megacorp media 24/7 and can only vote for two virtually identical political parties, then one where you have to keep the proles in line through comprehensive spying and fear. The smarter system, as shown in Nineteen Eighty-Four, is just to monitor and control the political and business classes. The Authoritarians haven't achieved complete control yet, but generally they can destroy many who have the power to oppose them, and co-opt most of the rest.
Stuff like the TSA isn't about taking away liberty, it is about reminding the dissidents about who is really in charge, and to show them how futile their efforts to take on the regime are.
I love Minecraft but it is hardly going to change the gaming industry. Minecraft isn't the first game that allowed players to manipulate the terrain*, I was digging tunnels and building fortresses back in the mid-90's with the Worms series. Hell, Minecraft is based off Infiniminer, there isn't much real originality or ground breaking in it. What I think Minecraft did was capture the zeitgeist. There is a large retro movement going on at the moment, and many Gen-X and Y gamers are nostalgic for the simple games of the 8-bit era. Minecraft took that 8-bit styling and gave us a box of blocks to do whatever the hell we want with.
It isn't ground breaking, and it won't change the face of gaming because people still want those other gaming experiences. You don't need two different "box of blocks" games. Even if the terrain manipulation craze took off it would be quickly stopped by the technical limitations of current consoles (which are the target for most games).
Also don't forget that people like nVidia have been banking on physics heavy games taking off (eg with their system where their GPU's can also do physics processing) for years and it simply hasn't happened. Partially because game developers focus on the consoles, which have limited processing power by modern standards, and partially because most people simply don't care that much.
Microsoft provides software to three letter USA government agencies. Providing services to three letter government agencies doesn't make you a top tier contractor.
Yeah, because a break in at some third rate defence contractor is equivalent to the destruction of a large part of the US pacific fleet and the deaths of thousands of US military personnel.
A "digital Pearl Harbor" would be a break in to something like the NSA/CIA/Pentagon that allowed an enemy to gain and exploit a military advantage.
And why do you think that being from those parts magically imparts knowledge of how to effectively and efficiently cool large open areas where lots of people congregate?
Maybe because this isn't a novel situation you dumbfuck. The people that live in Egypt have dealt with this issue on a daily basis for thousands of years. This isn't a matter of a group of people going to a place whose environment is out of the bounds of their everyday experience. If the question was "I am going to Egypt as a tourist and would like to know how to deal with the heat" it might be a valid question. Thinking that a bunch of mostly Western nerds can come up with a better solution then the natives, that can be rolled out in time to have any effect on the protesters in Tahrir square, is Western arrogance of the extreme.
"Oh the poor little brown people are too naive to understand that standing in the sun all day is tiring!"
If the Egyptians need our help in anything it is in making sure our governments stop supporting oppressive regimes. Not tips on dealing with hot weather.
Which is what I saw the protesters doing months ago. You get some shade, drink lots of water, and avoid heavy exertion. Basic hot weather protocol, which is all those protesters are going to bother to do. This isn't fucking rocket science, but this is one of the most retarded Ask Slashdots I have ever read.
Why the fuck does your Western arse think it is smarter then the people who have lived in those climates for at least the past thousand years?
Al Qaeda was a reaction to Arab tyrants propped up by the American government. What has defeated Al Qaeda is the "Arab spring". If there are no corrupt tyrants and those Arab countries can actually develop their economies Al Qaeda have nothing to offer except religious extremism. Which most people don't want. Most people no matter their religion just want to be able to provide for their families and live in peace.
While "Al Qaeda" will be around for decades, without a support base of poor Arabs their ability to carry out any serious attack is nullified.
And it is trivial to "get around" the current government enforced "rating" (aka censorship) of movies/songs/books. The onus would also be on the Moral Brigade to show a design for a filter that wasn't similarly easy to get around.
Even the proposed government filter was only for HTTP, despite the fact that child pornographers mostly moved off permanent websites many years ago (and thus the ACMA filter list mostly contained hacked sites that had already had the illegal content removed).
Instead of being able to shout "Only child molesters are against the filter!" they would need to come up with something of more substance.
Anyone who is against this filter needs to see the long game. This filter is great for the following reasons:
1) It is a CP filter. Any argument in future for a government backed filter because "think of teh children!" can be defused by pointing out we already have a voluntary industry filter. This is why the US movie industry has a self-regulated rating system.
2) It is trivial to get around. Even my mum could follow directions to circumvent this filter. It isn't going to cause traffic slowdowns or require expensive VPN's to foreign countries to get around.
3) There is no issue about the list being secret because anyone who tries to visit a blocked website will get a redirect telling them that it is on the block list. If this website is innocuous this information can be spread via social media and the like and used to harass the ISP's into unfiltering it. Corporations are a lot more responsive to public complaint then government departments.
4) The law IS unclear. This is great, as it means the authorities have no real ability to force ISP's to comply with this "industry" filtering agreement. Which means they can't just block new categories of content on a whim, or increase the sophistication of the filter.
In summary people against censorship should be for this filter because it is such a house of cards AND defuses the main argument the pro-censorship people use "do you want people to be able to view child porn?". Things will go to shit if the government is actually allowed to get really involved, because both main parties here have shown no fear of incredible infringements of civil rights (here in NSW we only just got our right of association back after legislation was struck down that prevented members of criminal motorcycle gangs associating with each other).
The censorship that is going on here in Australia would never work in America. Here in Australia we have a consistent history of censoring all forms of media. Our constitution is partially based on the US one but it only protects "political" speech, so we have always followed the British model of comprehensive censorship of non-political subjects.
Any kind of industry agreement in the US, which couldn't be "assisted" by the government like it is here in Australia, would last until one ISP figured they could make more money selling unfiltered access.
"At this time to plan the removal of POTS seems like a conspiracy to reduce options, to force people to spend money on equipment, and to increase monthly costs."
What, rather then the tax payer giving massive subsidies for a service that less and less people use each year?
POTS/PSTN is fading out of the mainstream, when that happens keeping it going for the few rural/paranoid/luddite users would be a huge drain on the public purse. POTS/PSTN is only cheap now because it was mostly paid for by taxpayers in the 60's - 80's. Likely the "last mile" PTSN stuff will still be there in some areas for another hundred years, but the local exchange will be hooked into a link like the Australian NBN.
Complaining about the demise of PTSN is like complaining about the demise of the telegraph.
Apart from this little thing we call "wind". A quadcopter can compensate for wind in a way a balloon cannot (surface area is the balloons biggest weakness). Also for a 24/7 balloon you would need a pipe for lifting gas (Helium is a slippery customer) in addition to the one for powering the equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
What utter bullshit.
If people actually followed your line of thinking the species would die out because interpersonal relationships are a huge risk. The biological fact is that something has to be high reward for large numbers of people to accept high risk.
This isn't about pointlessly maiming factory workers because the factory owner is too cheap to install hand guards, this is about the absolute scientific fact that people grow and develop by progressing through tasks of escalating difficulty and risk.
You can't coddle kids until they finish university and then expect them to be functional adults. Instead of making mistakes and growing when the risks are pretty low (falling out of a tree in the playground) they will make mistakes that have much more serious consequences (speeding and other dangerous driving, hard drugs, abusive relationships).
Yes, but the answer to this isn't to classify all data as ultra-double-dog-secret. Especially when the people with the access to that data are low level guys who could easily be bought out by any half-decent espionage agency (eg air-gapped systems don't stop a disgruntled intelligence analyst).
Classifying material doesn't matter when any of a few hundred thousand people with access could be co-opted or the information could be garnered from public sources or simple observation.
Considering how often Western intelligence agencies were infected with Soviet agents during the Cold War I wouldn't trust the traditional security model anyway. From my experience of operating in a high espionage environment (EvE:Online, where people will create a fake identity and spend months playing it in order to take revenge) my opinion is that the only sure method is to presume your plans are compromised or soon to be compromised if more then one person knows them.
Low-level classification is more about security theatre (ie making the bosses feel safe) then actual useful counter-espionage.
"Restricted", "sensitive", and "secret" material is low level. That is the level of material that everyone in the military and government bureaucracy has access to. It is the sort of stuff that is either not very sensitive (ie enemy agents could figure it out easily just from observing a base or similar) or has only a small window in which it is useful (ie by the time the enemy could react it would be too late).
These days with the adversarial government/media relationship tons of material is classified like this just to discourage the media from baking scandals, and to prevent citizens from finding out about legitimate scandals (at least in the short term).
What was accessed in this case was probably some boring inter-NATO administrative emails, with the most interesting stuff being up-coming exercises and the like.
The stuff that Wikileaks released that inspired this spate of hackings WAS from an air-gapped computer.
What is even interesting about "social" media? It is the same stuff people have done since there have been people except now someone is getting paid to provide this "service". Chatting on Facebook isn't conceptually any different from chatting on the phone, or at the cafe. Meeting strangers easily is why people used to go to clubs or dances etc.
"Social media" is just what people have always done, except now you have to give away personal information and watch ads.
The communication revolution now allows us to do these types things more easily and at greater distances then before, but the jury is still out on whether this is good for individuals or society (mainly due to effects like people restricting their social circle and sources of news to people that have the same biases and beliefs).
This is why the TSA is a joke. The authorities try to paint TSA agents as if they are all highly trained FBI agents or something, but they are low skill rent-a-cops with little educational requirement.
Drug runners subvert airport personnel and police all the time (and most contraband in prisons is smuggled in by the guards). Are we expected to believe that such a tactic is too dishonourable for terrorists or something? And the best bit is that the terrorists can just pretend to be drug runners and not even have to worry about finding an agent with similar ideology.
The MAFIAA are seeing their revenue drop because they are no longer the gate keepers to popular entertainment. Instead of buying CD's of artists signed to members of the RIAA, people can buy songs from tens of thousands of other artists who would never get signed by the big studios. Instead of watching a movie people are watching YouTube videos, chatting via social media, or playing games.
The reason the MAFIAA want to lock down the Internet and PC's isn't to stop piracy, it is to get back their position as gatekeepers of popular entertainment. How can they keep tricking artists into signing contracts that will see the artist get cents on the dollar, if the artist can simply market themselves via the Internet?
It is like Microsoft getting money for every Android device sold. If you can't compete get the government to hand you monopoly rent.
Conspiracy theorists are impossible to argue with. No matter what evidence you show to the kooks they will just rationalise it away. Conspiracy theory derives from an inability to accept the chaotic nature of reality, that "random" events outside the control of any central power can utterly destroy someone's life. The belief in conspiracy theory is a belief that SOMETHING is actually in control: THE GOVERNMENT!
And if THE GOVERNMENT could just have its secrets revealed, or if it was destroyed, then all would be right with the world and peace and justice would reign.
It doesn't matter if they are intentional. From local coverage about the "issue" here in Australia I think certain groups are trying to push the idea that having unsecured Wi-Fi is criminal negligence at best.
The articles are amusing in that they make it seem like unsecured Wi-Fi is mostly used for illegal activities and then say that having unsecured Wi-Fi could land you in trouble for what guests do through your link. If the first is true then it can used as a defence in the second instance. Especially as more and more judges are realising that having IP logs doesn't prove much and dismissing such cases.
The recent surge in stories about this "issue" is imo a reaction to such developments.
Yes, the US is in the running for number one supporter of state sponsored terrorism. Though normally they do it via CIA directed proxies rather then openly like the Russians.
Exactly. If the NCAA had of alleged the Univ. of North Carolina had failed to 'adequately and consistently monitor student athletes via phone taps and private investigators' they would be regarded as insane. Sure what the athletes do could embarrass the university or the NCAA, but that is only cause to kick offenders off teams, not have them tracked and monitored.
Sports teams and universities have no duty to ACTIVELY monitor athletes (or other students) to prevent violations. They only have a moral (and sometimes legal) duty to deal openly and fairly when violations come to their attention.
If they can't trust a particular athlete to not do illegal drugs and have sex with under-age teens or something that person should just not be on the team.
No, a terrorist is someone who TERRORISES through acts or threats of violence against CIVILIAN targets to achieve political change. If someone plants a command detonated mine and uses it to blow up a military convoy that is a legitimate act of war. If they use the same mine to blow up a school bus full of kids that is an act of terrorism.
The definition IS CLEAR and HAS BEEN CLEAR since it came about. The "terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side" is bullshit propagated by people who support violence against civilians as a means of effecting political change.
The insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq get called terrorists because they fucking go after civilian targets as well as military ones. And yes most nations have at some point in time committed acts which now would be called terrorism. Instead of white-washing this by perverting the meaning of "terrorism" we need to own up to it and stop that shit.
WTF do people think all the START things are? It stands for STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The US and Russia have been cutting back their arsenals for more than twenty years. The reason there is huge upcoming expenditures being budgeted for is because the US nuclear arsenal is pretty much late 1980's vintage. Nuclear warheads don't stay viable forever, and planes and submarines wear out. Most of the expenditure is going to be on the planes and submarines, not Nuclear warheads, and those planes and submarines have non-nuclear warfare use
The B-52 was designed as a nuclear bomber, but has probably dropped more conventional ordnance then all other aircraft combined ever. Most SSBNs around the world have been adapted to be capable of firing either non-nuclear IMRBM or non-nuclear cruise missiles. They aren't just sitting under the ice with a cargo of nukes waiting for the Russkis to push the button.
The expensive thing isn't nuclear weapons, it is launch platforms and manpower. If you start cutting those heavily you may as well cut the carrier fleets and a few army divisions as well and accept not having the ability to fight three different wars at once.
The state controls everything and tells you what to think.
But that isn't happening, and is the smartest part of the Authoritarians plan. As shown by the example of the Soviet systems, people revolt when you overtly restrict their day-to-day choices. The Authoritarians, that have been chipping away at the US Constitution since the ink dried, have realised this and so only grab control on the macro-level.
It is much easier to control a society where the proles think they have liberty, but are feed propaganda by megacorp media 24/7 and can only vote for two virtually identical political parties, then one where you have to keep the proles in line through comprehensive spying and fear. The smarter system, as shown in Nineteen Eighty-Four, is just to monitor and control the political and business classes. The Authoritarians haven't achieved complete control yet, but generally they can destroy many who have the power to oppose them, and co-opt most of the rest.
Stuff like the TSA isn't about taking away liberty, it is about reminding the dissidents about who is really in charge, and to show them how futile their efforts to take on the regime are.
I love Minecraft but it is hardly going to change the gaming industry. Minecraft isn't the first game that allowed players to manipulate the terrain*, I was digging tunnels and building fortresses back in the mid-90's with the Worms series. Hell, Minecraft is based off Infiniminer, there isn't much real originality or ground breaking in it. What I think Minecraft did was capture the zeitgeist. There is a large retro movement going on at the moment, and many Gen-X and Y gamers are nostalgic for the simple games of the 8-bit era. Minecraft took that 8-bit styling and gave us a box of blocks to do whatever the hell we want with.
It isn't ground breaking, and it won't change the face of gaming because people still want those other gaming experiences. You don't need two different "box of blocks" games. Even if the terrain manipulation craze took off it would be quickly stopped by the technical limitations of current consoles (which are the target for most games).
Also don't forget that people like nVidia have been banking on physics heavy games taking off (eg with their system where their GPU's can also do physics processing) for years and it simply hasn't happened. Partially because game developers focus on the consoles, which have limited processing power by modern standards, and partially because most people simply don't care that much.
* Red Faction was doing this in 3D in the 2001.
Microsoft provides software to three letter USA government agencies. Providing services to three letter government agencies doesn't make you a top tier contractor.
Yeah, because a break in at some third rate defence contractor is equivalent to the destruction of a large part of the US pacific fleet and the deaths of thousands of US military personnel.
A "digital Pearl Harbor" would be a break in to something like the NSA/CIA/Pentagon that allowed an enemy to gain and exploit a military advantage.
Maybe because this isn't a novel situation you dumbfuck. The people that live in Egypt have dealt with this issue on a daily basis for thousands of years. This isn't a matter of a group of people going to a place whose environment is out of the bounds of their everyday experience. If the question was "I am going to Egypt as a tourist and would like to know how to deal with the heat" it might be a valid question. Thinking that a bunch of mostly Western nerds can come up with a better solution then the natives, that can be rolled out in time to have any effect on the protesters in Tahrir square, is Western arrogance of the extreme.
"Oh the poor little brown people are too naive to understand that standing in the sun all day is tiring!"
If the Egyptians need our help in anything it is in making sure our governments stop supporting oppressive regimes. Not tips on dealing with hot weather.
Get a tarp.
Get some poles.
Profit.
Which is what I saw the protesters doing months ago. You get some shade, drink lots of water, and avoid heavy exertion. Basic hot weather protocol, which is all those protesters are going to bother to do. This isn't fucking rocket science, but this is one of the most retarded Ask Slashdots I have ever read.
Why the fuck does your Western arse think it is smarter then the people who have lived in those climates for at least the past thousand years?
Al Qaeda was a reaction to Arab tyrants propped up by the American government. What has defeated Al Qaeda is the "Arab spring". If there are no corrupt tyrants and those Arab countries can actually develop their economies Al Qaeda have nothing to offer except religious extremism. Which most people don't want. Most people no matter their religion just want to be able to provide for their families and live in peace.
While "Al Qaeda" will be around for decades, without a support base of poor Arabs their ability to carry out any serious attack is nullified.
And it is trivial to "get around" the current government enforced "rating" (aka censorship) of movies/songs/books. The onus would also be on the Moral Brigade to show a design for a filter that wasn't similarly easy to get around.
Even the proposed government filter was only for HTTP, despite the fact that child pornographers mostly moved off permanent websites many years ago (and thus the ACMA filter list mostly contained hacked sites that had already had the illegal content removed).
Instead of being able to shout "Only child molesters are against the filter!" they would need to come up with something of more substance.
Anyone who is against this filter needs to see the long game. This filter is great for the following reasons:
1) It is a CP filter. Any argument in future for a government backed filter because "think of teh children!" can be defused by pointing out we already have a voluntary industry filter. This is why the US movie industry has a self-regulated rating system.
2) It is trivial to get around. Even my mum could follow directions to circumvent this filter. It isn't going to cause traffic slowdowns or require expensive VPN's to foreign countries to get around.
3) There is no issue about the list being secret because anyone who tries to visit a blocked website will get a redirect telling them that it is on the block list. If this website is innocuous this information can be spread via social media and the like and used to harass the ISP's into unfiltering it. Corporations are a lot more responsive to public complaint then government departments.
4) The law IS unclear. This is great, as it means the authorities have no real ability to force ISP's to comply with this "industry" filtering agreement. Which means they can't just block new categories of content on a whim, or increase the sophistication of the filter.
In summary people against censorship should be for this filter because it is such a house of cards AND defuses the main argument the pro-censorship people use "do you want people to be able to view child porn?". Things will go to shit if the government is actually allowed to get really involved, because both main parties here have shown no fear of incredible infringements of civil rights (here in NSW we only just got our right of association back after legislation was struck down that prevented members of criminal motorcycle gangs associating with each other).
The censorship that is going on here in Australia would never work in America. Here in Australia we have a consistent history of censoring all forms of media. Our constitution is partially based on the US one but it only protects "political" speech, so we have always followed the British model of comprehensive censorship of non-political subjects.
Any kind of industry agreement in the US, which couldn't be "assisted" by the government like it is here in Australia, would last until one ISP figured they could make more money selling unfiltered access.
"At this time to plan the removal of POTS seems like a conspiracy to reduce options, to force people to spend money on equipment, and to increase monthly costs."
What, rather then the tax payer giving massive subsidies for a service that less and less people use each year?
POTS/PSTN is fading out of the mainstream, when that happens keeping it going for the few rural/paranoid/luddite users would be a huge drain on the public purse. POTS/PSTN is only cheap now because it was mostly paid for by taxpayers in the 60's - 80's. Likely the "last mile" PTSN stuff will still be there in some areas for another hundred years, but the local exchange will be hooked into a link like the Australian NBN.
Complaining about the demise of PTSN is like complaining about the demise of the telegraph.
Scientists generally don't stage mass protests, obstruct traffic, riot etc.
All of which commonly occurs in Europe whenever the agricultural sector there feels threatened.
Apart from this little thing we call "wind". A quadcopter can compensate for wind in a way a balloon cannot (surface area is the balloons biggest weakness). Also for a 24/7 balloon you would need a pipe for lifting gas (Helium is a slippery customer) in addition to the one for powering the equipment.