Tor, Freenet, and I2P are probably on the top of the list. There is no way that government wants difficult to trace communication to be availble to the general public.
And yet, Tor development was partially funded by the DoD.
Even more ironic, the entire internet was a DoD DARPA project.
Personally, it wouldn't surprise me if the internet itself was "The Most Likely To Be Shut Down (by the) Government". At least, the internet as we now know it as a general-purpose two-way distributed-node type network that is as hard to control and censor as the current iteration is.
The point in building a "colony" in a hostile environment ON Earth is to develop technologies to create enclosed self sustaining habitats. It would be infinitely cheaper I absolutely do not think you can compare the moon shots to the difficulty of a sustained colony. Despite increases in technology we have actually lost a lot of experience in rocket building due to the changes in the space program and aging engineers. I do think the moon would have to be a stepping stone but I don't think shouting "moon colony by the end of the decade" alone would get us there.
The problem with using an experimental "colony" on Earth is that too many of the conditions and requirements that are critical to success can't be duplicated. How will biological systems, human, plant, and also possibly animal develop in a fractional-gravity environment? How will solar-mirror refineries and gas collection and recombination systems work in a nearly total vacuum and fractional gravity? What sort of radiation and micrometeor protection and warning systems will work?
These and other questions involving conditions we can't duplicate here on Earth in sufficient quantities/timeframes/volumes of space are why a "colony" on Earth would be a poor investment in time and resources towards gaining the necessary knowledge and abilities to sustain humans off the planet. Better to use those resources in sending longer and longer term manned missions into space and to the moon to achieve those goals, and avoid duplication of effort.
That you mention the loss of technical expertise because we've not used it speaks against your assertions that we don't need a manned space exploration/colonization program. It was exactly those programs that gave us the knowledge and expertise to start with.
At the time of Kennedys' "Moon speech" in 1961, the US had only just launched Alan Sheppard in the first US manned sub-orbital flight. We had not even at that point put a human in orbit. We weren't even entirely sure it was even possible to put a human in orbit and have him survive. We had only just officially broken the sound barrier with a manned vehicle around 14 years previously. Transistors had just seen the very first commercial use in hearing aids just 9 years previous. The very first integrated circuit had been manufactured a scant 3 years previously. Most electronics were sill based on vacuum tubes.
With that primitive technological knowledge base, and no practical spaceflight experience or knowledge at all, for all intents and purposes, we set out to put a man on another celestial body and return him safely to Earth. I guess that was a mistake. We should have waited until we developed the Space Shuttle I suppose.
With the knowledge and technology available today, creating a sustained human presence on the moon is no more difficult, and arguably technologically more feasible, than Kennedys' vision comparatively speaking.
I didn't say anything about "shouting" for "a moon colony in ten years". I think we have the ability to create a sustained human presence on the moon in ten years, but I think 15 or 20 would be reasonable and be less likely to result in excessive loss of life. There will almost certainly be loss of life in *any* undertaking of this scale and magnitude regardless of the timeframe or precautions taken, or if the undertaking is on or off the planet.
The knowledge, skills, and benefits gained however will change the life of every human on the planet for the better. There has not been any other investment of resources to date that has been shown to return as much to the everyday common mans' life per dollar spent as has the space program.
I don't think most people understand exactly how hostile every other planet in this solar system is to human life. You may as well build a "colony" on Antarctica or under the sea. It would certainly be easier. At least you wouldn't have to hurl your materials out of the planetary gravity well. You'd have an abundance of water to play with too.
No doubt that it would be an extreme challenge, especially given the technical abilities and limitations we have at present.
In 1961, we faced a challenge of nearly equal difficulty, given the tech at the time, in creating a program to send men to the moon and return them safely. The tech to accomplish the task came to be in the doing. If you wait for the tech to be created first, then you've already failed. A "colony" undersea or at one of Earths' polar regions would not be immune to a large meteor striking the Earth, nor to a pandemic or nuclear/biological war.
The key to a sustained human presence off the Earth will be the ability to refine and use materials at the destination. There was a news article a little while back that said that there were deposits of water-ice on Earths' moon. This would go a long way towards our ability to create a "way-station" for further exploration and expansion, especially as the gravity well of Earths' moon is only 1/6th that of the Earths'. Regardless, water-ice is not necessary, as gasses created by using solar mirrors to smelt ore can be recombined to create liquid water.
I could see a "Space-Dock" type facility in lunar orbit where deep-space exploration and transport craft were built using mostly materials mined from the moon. Solar-powered "rail guns" could fire automated containers like those now being used to supply the ISS into orbit.
There is more wealth and resources than can be imagined waiting for us here in our solar system alone. Enough to sustain the human race in wealth and comfort for many eons. To put icing on the cake the technical, social, medical, and inspirational benefits arising from the effort will benefit the human race both in ongoing current terms as well as in future rewards far beyond the investments made. That's not even mentioning the increased likelihood of the human races' survival beyond a random catastrophic event occurring to or on the Earth.
To trade all these benefits for short-term political gains and/or use it as a political football is obscene and a disservice to every human, even those not yet born, not just those of any specific nationality, race, religion, or political party.
The point? Sometimes it ain't about the immediate scientific benefits. Sometimes it's about the long-term. We (the US) screwed ourselves royally in the 1970's literally throwing out a shitload of research and knowledge (e.g. Saturn V propulsion, etc) - all in the name of politics. We really need to stop doing that if we are to have any hope of eventually getting a sizeable portion of mankind off of this one fragile pandemic-and-asteroid-prone rock.
I agree, we (as in humanity overall) need a manned space program. The spin-off tech alone has historically paid for the entire space program, manned and unmanned, many many times over. There isn't nearly as much of a technical challenge (and thus rewards in spin-off tech) in sending some hardware flying off somewhere on a one-way trip than there is in keeping a living human crew alive, deliver them to their destination, and return them safely.
Never mind the advantages in scientific information gathering and on the spot evaluation and adaptability to changing information and situations possible with a human crew that's completely impossible for a machine to duplicate. This can be important even in relatively simple matters, for example the Mars probes can be crippled if too much dust accumulates on the solar panels, where a human crew could simply brush the dust off.
There's also the inspirational factor for all of humanity. How many kids in the '60s and '70s said "I wanna be an astronaut when I grow up!", and were inspired to behave and try hard in school, even if they never actually became astronauts? Anyone who grew up during the manned spaceflight heydays understands what an enormous benefit it was in research, engineering, medicine, and in giving inspiration and hope to all people for the future of mankind. Hopes and dreams are powerful things that can inspire leaps and gains in both technology and in the social fabric impossible by any other means, and without which there is little hope for humanities' future.
Of course, politicians will increasingly see it differently over time, especially as the possibility of people moving off this planet gains more feasibility. How do they exert their power and control over people increasingly scattered across multiple planets/bodies/self-sustaining habitats? That this would vastly increase the chances of humanities' survival means little to them, as they could not care less if humanity survives long-term if it means they might lose power and control.
If they allowed large groups of people to colonize, these people might get some crazy idea that they should govern themselves or something! I think that this is one factor playing into the disinterest for manned spaceflight among those who desire more government control in peoples' lives. Even just the hopes and dreams of one day peoples' children or even great-great-grandchildren might be able to slip the yoke of government control can be enough to seriously impede their plans to increase their grip over the populace.
I must put in a plug here for a long-time favorite book; "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein. If you've never read it, put it on your "must read" list.
You know....I wonder why it took a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol in the US, then another one to end prohibition....yet no such action has had to be taken to outlaw pot and other drugs?
That's easy to explain. An amendment was needed in the case of alcohol because it is/was hugely popular and accepted across most demographic groups and a majority of the population as a whole. Also there was a large long-standing legitimate (and taxable) industry built around it.
The outlawing of certain drugs, especially marijuana and cocaine, were originally a tactic of racial and ethnic discrimination coupled with fears of floods of unemployed immigrants from Mexico during the Great Depression. After extended campaigns of propaganda and misinformation, these certain drugs became so distasteful to "proper" society that tactics used to make them illegal and prosecute offenders, that would otherwise raise a general outrage if applied to more popular and "accepted" things like alcohol or most any other substance or behavior, were given a pass out of a largely government-generated sense of fear and loathing among the larger populace.
...is that computer magazines run articles like this anyway. I doubt they'd post an article that's more or less "How-to warez more effectively!!!1", torrenting is something a lot of people do. The pirate bay is around top 100 on the alexia webranking, and if you start reading the next 100 maybe you'll realize just how big that is. It's higher than IGN, NBA, Digg, 2ch, SourceForge, CNET, mozilla, amazon.de (not com!) and so on. Other prominent sites like IsoHunt (124), torrentz.com (157) also rate very highly. That's way beyond a few hogs they want to get rid of, saying "WTF I can't use torrents" is almost up there with "WTF I can't watch YouTube" or "WTF I can't run MSN". They'll be killing themselves if they keep this up...
Theoretically, I agree with your logic. Unfortunately the way it'll probably work out if history is any indication is that they'll partner-up with the big media and software interests to persuade the government to start another pointless, un-winnable "War On..." like the "War On Drugs" that's been such a success...oh, wait..it hasn't been "successful" at all in it's stated goals. But that won't deter them from making our lives hell in the meantime, I'm sure.
Hmm...what will they call it? "The War On Warez"? "The Purge Of Piracy"? How about "The Battle For Bits"? Whatever lame name or acronym they call it, I'm sure it'll end up costing *us*, the people, dearly...in money, freedom, and technical, scientific, and societal progress. Not to mention also further clogging the courts and packing our already-overcrowded prisons even further.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but c'mon mods! a "-1 Troll" mod?? It wasn't even anti-Swiss fer cryin' out loud!
It was funny *precisely* because everyone knows hows little the Swiss want to be "Overlords" of anything, except maybe neutrality! Oops, there I did it again!
You missed my point entirely. The original article, consisting of REAL journalists, avoid the provocative term "spying" because they are professional. Slashdot is sensational. You give me a nice list of definitions there, but maybe you should continue searching reference.com for deeper meanings. Besides, I have a 15+ year career in Intelligence, so I think I know a little bit about the subtleties relating to spying.
Perhaps those "REAL" journalists are a little more concerned about offending a possible advertising revenue stream provider than they are about getting to the meat and potatoes of the subject, rather than any "professionalism" being involved.
Intelligence gathering (spying) isn't only performed by uniformed and/or three-letter military/government agencies in foreign countries by cloak-and-dagger secret agents or involve the use of classified satellites, with all due respect to your intelligence career.
Sometimes people and corporations do it to other people or corporations for purely financial and leverage reasons. Having this infrastructure openly in place would make it trivially-easy to target/flag users of interest for further deeper data inspection and snooping.
Trade secrets and other information of commercial interest, blackmail material for troublesome and/or litigious people, as well as for key individuals of regulatory agencies and politicians, etc. Such a system could be a treasure-trove, and the only assurance we have that it won't be used as such is a letter from some PR/Marketing Dept. 'droids?.
With the track record of amoral behavior corporate America has shown over the last few decades, that's not enough for me, nor many others I'd wager.
I certainly agree that expanding DL suspension beyond the scope of driving enforcement is a bad direction. I vaguely remember the Michigan thing now, thanks for reminding me. The proper punishment in that case is garnishment, I cannot see how disabling / hampering one from getting to work is going to somehow enable collecting money from them. Pretty short-sighted law IMHO. I wasn't meaning that I think removing internet is a good idea either, since downloading is a civil matter. I just didn't think that driver licenses were the best comparison, That's all. Later.
Yes, agreed on the stupidity of attempting to collect money from a person by impairing their ability to make any. And no, I didn't think you meant that internet banishment was a good idea.
I was rather expanding on your comment by comparing the idiocy levels of legislators in the two neighboring countries who can come up with such bad ideas, and to even further add to their stupidity and short-sidedness, pass such lame ideas into law, as a warning to not believe "it couldn't happen here".
They are politicians, ergo, their ability to be idiots is beyond the ken of mere mortals and should never be underestimated.
Agent Smith: Mr. Anderson... you disappoint me. Neo: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap. I know my rights. I want my jury trial. Agent Smith: Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a jury trial... if you're unable to use the internet to obtain proof of your online activities to establish your innocence? Neo: Mmmphhgghh!!!!
Getting a driver license suspended is usually an extreme measure based on DUI, too many points for dangerous maneuvers etc. That is, it is normally a result of risking other people's lives needlessly. (I'm sure someone can provide anecdotes to the contrary, but this is usually the case from what I have seen) A life and death situation is a far cry from any over-inflated 'financial damage' claim. Not that I think there is not some room for punitive damages here, but it holds no comparison to a life/death scenario.
Yes, that's true in most cases...for now. However, there *is* an increasing trend by many states to use the "privilege" of driving as an enforcement tool and means of punishment for non-compliance for unrelated laws and policies. For instance, in Michigan, if you happen to be behind on child support...you get your DL suspended. States are starting to tie the driving "privilege" to compliance with other laws and policies completely unrelated to your safeness as a driver, or compliance with driving-related laws and regulations.
This is rather scary, especially coupled with the fact that most times you receive no notification that your license is suspended. Even cities and municipalities are beginning to get in on the act by having drivers' licenses suspended for failure to pay parking fines and such.
Drive to some city for shopping, for instance, and receive a parking ticket that gets blown off your windshield, and the next time you're driving about and get a routine traffic stop, you could wind up taking a trip handcuffed in the back of a squad car while your vehicle is impounded for driving on a suspended license.
It used to be that you had to commit a serious driving-related crime, or be in very serious trouble in some other way before your drivers' license was suspended. These days it seems like government is using suspension of drivers' licenses as a catch-all punishment and coercion tool for just about anything they feel like.
I fear that soon it may even go farther. Violate a local ordinance by having your trash can too close to the curb? Let your grass grow too high? Miss a payment on your city water/sewer bill? Get identified participating in a demonstration/protest where proper permits weren't obtained? Better start taking the bus!
Given this trend, it doesn't surprise me in the least that government would seek to use another "privilege" like internet access as another Sword of Damocles to hold over the populaces' collective heads to coerce compliance and mete out punishment for unwanted behaviors.
People with email@msn.com addresses never receive YahooGroups.com invites. I get them bounced back to me routinely.
This IM blocking is just another reason to boycott msn.com, hotmail.com & live.com.
[Of course, YahooGroups now adds spaces in URLs I try to send to my groups. I have to TinyURL everything these days.]
Yahoo has been blocking Photobucket.com links for ages in Yahoo chat. This is nothing new. Seems like it's getting to be pretty much S.O.P. these days for large 'net-service companies that provide multiple services including IM/chatroom-type services. Just forbid URLs to competitions' websites and services from being communicated over your services, and to heck with what the user wants.
Nevermind that most peoples' reactions that discover this that I've seen was anger, disgust, and frustration, along with a fierce determination to *never* use Flickr (Yahoos' photo/video upload service) just because of this stupidity, and even closing accounts there. Way to retain users, there, Yahoo!
I'm waiting to see if it comes to the point that things like the MSN Messenger installer silently removes competing IM/chat service client software. Or when things like Yahoo Messenger blocks the installation of competing services' software, or refuses to install while that software is present, and/or adds entries to the hosts file, blocking access to competitors'websites and services.
When will these corporations learn that users naturally tend to use multiple providers for any one function or service, and that these kinds of childish behaviors only alienates them?
Wow, you replied with another strawman. He took issue with "It seems the people on the left most vocal about defending the Constitution and the intent of its founders are the ones most determined to destroy its second amendment.", not your factual statement.
Our founders intended us to have freedom of speech, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and to be able to have military weapons to defend ourselves and our nation. It's one package.
Nice strawman. Got any proof?
Proof *does* exist. However, to read it will require a very careful and thorough cleaning beforehand with lots of disinfectant, odor-eliminators, and use of rubber gloves. You can probably find it floating at the top of a sewer reclamation plant pool in the Washington, D.C. area. Oh, and I'd skip lunch if I were you.
I have to disagree. From my experience working in the electrical and electronics fields for over 30 years, you can have 50,000 volts across your body, but if the current flowing is only a couple of microamps, you'll barely feel anything. However, increase the current to 5-10 milliamps or more, and you'll get quite a jolt. So, you have discovered a device that can change some other factor of a power source so that it is always 50,000 volts, but it sometimes delivers 2 microamps and sometimes delivers 5 millamps over the same load? You should publish your work as the rest of the electronics community is unaware of this capability. You'll be famous.
As I replied to Ihlosi, I was simply postulating a theoretical situation to provide an example for the subject I was discussing.
However, since you asked, it is possible to alter the current and voltage output of a power supply with current and voltage regulation circuitry. Google provides many examples. How much current and voltage can be regulated depends on the particular design and the components used, and how deep your pockets are.
Besides, you can see and experience a great example of very high voltages but extremely low current with simple static electrical charges. Very high voltage discharge, but very low current.
This has little to do with the subject of my post, which was that current flow was the determining factor in how damaging/painful an electrical shock is.
In other words, you can have 50,000 volts or more across your body at a couple microamps of current flow
How ? I = U / R, and R of the human body is in the order of a couple of kOhms. Where do you get the several MOhm resistance you need to get microamps out of 50 kV ?
I was simply postulating a theoretical scenario to provide an example where that much current was flowing through a body based on the current capacity of the power source, not on a power source that was capable of delivering more than what I stated.
"Local News has learned that the widow of the dead lineman will not receive any pension or insurance benefits, as the excited delirium, which was determined to be the official cause of death, was ruled to be a pre-existing condition and therefor the death was not job-related."
"Local News will attempt to contact the dead linemans' widow and her 4 children for reaction and quotes at the homeless shelter next week. Now for the weather..."
I started out writing this to be funny, but the more I read it, the more plausible it seems...
Slashdot Mirror
Something about your name and post made me think about a large planet firing gun called the "Shat-o-caster"
:D
*Whew!*
I'm just relieved it was a *planet*-firing gun I and my post reminded you of, rather than something more closely-related to "Shat" and a barnyard!
Cheers!
Strat
Quick... somebody run find Leeloo.
I think I can safely say you'd have the *eager* assistance of every heterosexual male on the planet for that task...
Cheers!
Strat
Eh. how about calling it "large dense object in space" also known as The Shatner
Or how about just "Shat" for short?
[Father O'Flannery voice] Aye, ye'll be burnin' in purgatory fer that one, me boy-o! [/Father O'Flannery voice]
Sorry.
Really.
Strat
Tor, Freenet, and I2P are probably on the top of the list. There is no way that government wants difficult to trace communication to be availble to the general public.
And yet, Tor development was partially funded by the DoD.
Even more ironic, the entire internet was a DoD DARPA project.
Personally, it wouldn't surprise me if the internet itself was "The Most Likely To Be Shut Down (by the) Government". At least, the internet as we now know it as a general-purpose two-way distributed-node type network that is as hard to control and censor as the current iteration is.
Cheers!
Strat
Although the FBI *is* investigating, be on the lookout for a hastily-written and passed-by-voice-vote bill by Congress OK'ing this behavior by MD.
Cheers!
Strat
The point in building a "colony" in a hostile environment ON Earth is to develop technologies to create enclosed self sustaining habitats. It would be infinitely cheaper
I absolutely do not think you can compare the moon shots to the difficulty of a sustained colony. Despite increases in technology we have actually lost a lot of experience in rocket building due to the changes in the space program and aging engineers.
I do think the moon would have to be a stepping stone but I don't think shouting "moon colony by the end of the decade" alone would get us there.
The problem with using an experimental "colony" on Earth is that too many of the conditions and requirements that are critical to success can't be duplicated. How will biological systems, human, plant, and also possibly animal develop in a fractional-gravity environment? How will solar-mirror refineries and gas collection and recombination systems work in a nearly total vacuum and fractional gravity? What sort of radiation and micrometeor protection and warning systems will work?
These and other questions involving conditions we can't duplicate here on Earth in sufficient quantities/timeframes/volumes of space are why a "colony" on Earth would be a poor investment in time and resources towards gaining the necessary knowledge and abilities to sustain humans off the planet. Better to use those resources in sending longer and longer term manned missions into space and to the moon to achieve those goals, and avoid duplication of effort.
That you mention the loss of technical expertise because we've not used it speaks against your assertions that we don't need a manned space exploration/colonization program. It was exactly those programs that gave us the knowledge and expertise to start with.
At the time of Kennedys' "Moon speech" in 1961, the US had only just launched Alan Sheppard in the first US manned sub-orbital flight. We had not even at that point put a human in orbit. We weren't even entirely sure it was even possible to put a human in orbit and have him survive. We had only just officially broken the sound barrier with a manned vehicle around 14 years previously. Transistors had just seen the very first commercial use in hearing aids just 9 years previous. The very first integrated circuit had been manufactured a scant 3 years previously. Most electronics were sill based on vacuum tubes.
With that primitive technological knowledge base, and no practical spaceflight experience or knowledge at all, for all intents and purposes, we set out to put a man on another celestial body and return him safely to Earth. I guess that was a mistake. We should have waited until we developed the Space Shuttle I suppose.
With the knowledge and technology available today, creating a sustained human presence on the moon is no more difficult, and arguably technologically more feasible, than Kennedys' vision comparatively speaking.
I didn't say anything about "shouting" for "a moon colony in ten years". I think we have the ability to create a sustained human presence on the moon in ten years, but I think 15 or 20 would be reasonable and be less likely to result in excessive loss of life. There will almost certainly be loss of life in *any* undertaking of this scale and magnitude regardless of the timeframe or precautions taken, or if the undertaking is on or off the planet.
The knowledge, skills, and benefits gained however will change the life of every human on the planet for the better. There has not been any other investment of resources to date that has been shown to return as much to the everyday common mans' life per dollar spent as has the space program.
Cheers!
Strat
I don't think most people understand exactly how hostile every other planet in this solar system is to human life. You may as well build a "colony" on Antarctica or under the sea. It would certainly be easier. At least you wouldn't have to hurl your materials out of the planetary gravity well. You'd have an abundance of water to play with too.
No doubt that it would be an extreme challenge, especially given the technical abilities and limitations we have at present.
In 1961, we faced a challenge of nearly equal difficulty, given the tech at the time, in creating a program to send men to the moon and return them safely. The tech to accomplish the task came to be in the doing. If you wait for the tech to be created first, then you've already failed. A "colony" undersea or at one of Earths' polar regions would not be immune to a large meteor striking the Earth, nor to a pandemic or nuclear/biological war.
The key to a sustained human presence off the Earth will be the ability to refine and use materials at the destination. There was a news article a little while back that said that there were deposits of water-ice on Earths' moon. This would go a long way towards our ability to create a "way-station" for further exploration and expansion, especially as the gravity well of Earths' moon is only 1/6th that of the Earths'. Regardless, water-ice is not necessary, as gasses created by using solar mirrors to smelt ore can be recombined to create liquid water.
I could see a "Space-Dock" type facility in lunar orbit where deep-space exploration and transport craft were built using mostly materials mined from the moon. Solar-powered "rail guns" could fire automated containers like those now being used to supply the ISS into orbit.
There is more wealth and resources than can be imagined waiting for us here in our solar system alone. Enough to sustain the human race in wealth and comfort for many eons. To put icing on the cake the technical, social, medical, and inspirational benefits arising from the effort will benefit the human race both in ongoing current terms as well as in future rewards far beyond the investments made. That's not even mentioning the increased likelihood of the human races' survival beyond a random catastrophic event occurring to or on the Earth.
To trade all these benefits for short-term political gains and/or use it as a political football is obscene and a disservice to every human, even those not yet born, not just those of any specific nationality, race, religion, or political party.
Cheers!
Strat
The point? Sometimes it ain't about the immediate scientific benefits. Sometimes it's about the long-term. We (the US) screwed ourselves royally in the 1970's literally throwing out a shitload of research and knowledge (e.g. Saturn V propulsion, etc) - all in the name of politics. We really need to stop doing that if we are to have any hope of eventually getting a sizeable portion of mankind off of this one fragile pandemic-and-asteroid-prone rock.
I agree, we (as in humanity overall) need a manned space program. The spin-off tech alone has historically paid for the entire space program, manned and unmanned, many many times over. There isn't nearly as much of a technical challenge (and thus rewards in spin-off tech) in sending some hardware flying off somewhere on a one-way trip than there is in keeping a living human crew alive, deliver them to their destination, and return them safely.
Never mind the advantages in scientific information gathering and on the spot evaluation and adaptability to changing information and situations possible with a human crew that's completely impossible for a machine to duplicate. This can be important even in relatively simple matters, for example the Mars probes can be crippled if too much dust accumulates on the solar panels, where a human crew could simply brush the dust off.
There's also the inspirational factor for all of humanity. How many kids in the '60s and '70s said "I wanna be an astronaut when I grow up!", and were inspired to behave and try hard in school, even if they never actually became astronauts? Anyone who grew up during the manned spaceflight heydays understands what an enormous benefit it was in research, engineering, medicine, and in giving inspiration and hope to all people for the future of mankind. Hopes and dreams are powerful things that can inspire leaps and gains in both technology and in the social fabric impossible by any other means, and without which there is little hope for humanities' future.
Of course, politicians will increasingly see it differently over time, especially as the possibility of people moving off this planet gains more feasibility. How do they exert their power and control over people increasingly scattered across multiple planets/bodies/self-sustaining habitats? That this would vastly increase the chances of humanities' survival means little to them, as they could not care less if humanity survives long-term if it means they might lose power and control.
If they allowed large groups of people to colonize, these people might get some crazy idea that they should govern themselves or something! I think that this is one factor playing into the disinterest for manned spaceflight among those who desire more government control in peoples' lives. Even just the hopes and dreams of one day peoples' children or even great-great-grandchildren might be able to slip the yoke of government control can be enough to seriously impede their plans to increase their grip over the populace.
I must put in a plug here for a long-time favorite book; "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein. If you've never read it, put it on your "must read" list.
Cheers!
Strat
You know....I wonder why it took a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol in the US, then another one to end prohibition....yet no such action has had to be taken to outlaw pot and other drugs?
That's easy to explain. An amendment was needed in the case of alcohol because it is/was hugely popular and accepted across most demographic groups and a majority of the population as a whole. Also there was a large long-standing legitimate (and taxable) industry built around it.
The outlawing of certain drugs, especially marijuana and cocaine, were originally a tactic of racial and ethnic discrimination coupled with fears of floods of unemployed immigrants from Mexico during the Great Depression. After extended campaigns of propaganda and misinformation, these certain drugs became so distasteful to "proper" society that tactics used to make them illegal and prosecute offenders, that would otherwise raise a general outrage if applied to more popular and "accepted" things like alcohol or most any other substance or behavior, were given a pass out of a largely government-generated sense of fear and loathing among the larger populace.
Cheers!
Strat
It seems to be some sort of construction/zoning notice. Something about a hyperspace-bypass being put in...
Cheers!
Strat
...is that computer magazines run articles like this anyway. I doubt they'd post an article that's more or less "How-to warez more effectively!!!1", torrenting is something a lot of people do. The pirate bay is around top 100 on the alexia webranking, and if you start reading the next 100 maybe you'll realize just how big that is. It's higher than IGN, NBA, Digg, 2ch, SourceForge, CNET, mozilla, amazon.de (not com!) and so on. Other prominent sites like IsoHunt (124), torrentz.com (157) also rate very highly. That's way beyond a few hogs they want to get rid of, saying "WTF I can't use torrents" is almost up there with "WTF I can't watch YouTube" or "WTF I can't run MSN". They'll be killing themselves if they keep this up...
Theoretically, I agree with your logic. Unfortunately the way it'll probably work out if history is any indication is that they'll partner-up with the big media and software interests to persuade the government to start another pointless, un-winnable "War On..." like the "War On Drugs" that's been such a success...oh, wait..it hasn't been "successful" at all in it's stated goals. But that won't deter them from making our lives hell in the meantime, I'm sure.
Hmm...what will they call it? "The War On Warez"? "The Purge Of Piracy"? How about "The Battle For Bits"? Whatever lame name or acronym they call it, I'm sure it'll end up costing *us*, the people, dearly...in money, freedom, and technical, scientific, and societal progress. Not to mention also further clogging the courts and packing our already-overcrowded prisons even further.
Cheers!
Strat
Sorry to reply to my own post, but c'mon mods! a "-1 Troll" mod?? It wasn't even anti-Swiss fer cryin' out loud!
It was funny *precisely* because everyone knows hows little the Swiss want to be "Overlords" of anything, except maybe neutrality! Oops, there I did it again!
*Sigh*
Oh well..I've got the karma...burn, baby, burn!
Cheers!
Strat
A great big THANKYOU!
From all the "Red Circle Of Death"-experienced gamers everywhere!
I keed, I keed!
Cheers!
Strat
I for one welcome our new jet-winged Swiss overlord.
Cheers!
Strat
FP?
You missed my point entirely. The original article, consisting of REAL journalists, avoid the provocative term "spying" because they are professional. Slashdot is sensational. You give me a nice list of definitions there, but maybe you should continue searching reference.com for deeper meanings. Besides, I have a 15+ year career in Intelligence, so I think I know a little bit about the subtleties relating to spying.
Perhaps those "REAL" journalists are a little more concerned about offending a possible advertising revenue stream provider than they are about getting to the meat and potatoes of the subject, rather than any "professionalism" being involved.
Intelligence gathering (spying) isn't only performed by uniformed and/or three-letter military/government agencies in foreign countries by cloak-and-dagger secret agents or involve the use of classified satellites, with all due respect to your intelligence career.
Sometimes people and corporations do it to other people or corporations for purely financial and leverage reasons. Having this infrastructure openly in place would make it trivially-easy to target/flag users of interest for further deeper data inspection and snooping.
Trade secrets and other information of commercial interest, blackmail material for troublesome and/or litigious people, as well as for key individuals of regulatory agencies and politicians, etc. Such a system could be a treasure-trove, and the only assurance we have that it won't be used as such is a letter from some PR/Marketing Dept. 'droids?.
With the track record of amoral behavior corporate America has shown over the last few decades, that's not enough for me, nor many others I'd wager.
Cheers!
Strat
I certainly agree that expanding DL suspension beyond the scope of driving enforcement is a bad direction. I vaguely remember the Michigan thing now, thanks for reminding me. The proper punishment in that case is garnishment, I cannot see how disabling / hampering one from getting to work is going to somehow enable collecting money from them. Pretty short-sighted law IMHO. I wasn't meaning that I think removing internet is a good idea either, since downloading is a civil matter. I just didn't think that driver licenses were the best comparison, That's all. Later.
Yes, agreed on the stupidity of attempting to collect money from a person by impairing their ability to make any. And no, I didn't think you meant that internet banishment was a good idea.
I was rather expanding on your comment by comparing the idiocy levels of legislators in the two neighboring countries who can come up with such bad ideas, and to even further add to their stupidity and short-sidedness, pass such lame ideas into law, as a warning to not believe "it couldn't happen here".
They are politicians, ergo, their ability to be idiots is beyond the ken of mere mortals and should never be underestimated.
Cheers!
Strat
Agent Smith: Mr. Anderson... you disappoint me.
Neo: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap. I know my rights. I want my jury trial.
Agent Smith: Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a jury trial... if you're unable to use the internet to obtain proof of your online activities to establish your innocence?
Neo: Mmmphhgghh!!!!
Cheers!
Strat
Getting a driver license suspended is usually an extreme measure based on DUI, too many points for dangerous maneuvers etc. That is, it is normally a result of risking other people's lives needlessly. (I'm sure someone can provide anecdotes to the contrary, but this is usually the case from what I have seen) A life and death situation is a far cry from any over-inflated 'financial damage' claim. Not that I think there is not some room for punitive damages here, but it holds no comparison to a life/death scenario.
Yes, that's true in most cases...for now. However, there *is* an increasing trend by many states to use the "privilege" of driving as an enforcement tool and means of punishment for non-compliance for unrelated laws and policies. For instance, in Michigan, if you happen to be behind on child support...you get your DL suspended. States are starting to tie the driving "privilege" to compliance with other laws and policies completely unrelated to your safeness as a driver, or compliance with driving-related laws and regulations.
This is rather scary, especially coupled with the fact that most times you receive no notification that your license is suspended. Even cities and municipalities are beginning to get in on the act by having drivers' licenses suspended for failure to pay parking fines and such.
Drive to some city for shopping, for instance, and receive a parking ticket that gets blown off your windshield, and the next time you're driving about and get a routine traffic stop, you could wind up taking a trip handcuffed in the back of a squad car while your vehicle is impounded for driving on a suspended license.
It used to be that you had to commit a serious driving-related crime, or be in very serious trouble in some other way before your drivers' license was suspended. These days it seems like government is using suspension of drivers' licenses as a catch-all punishment and coercion tool for just about anything they feel like.
I fear that soon it may even go farther. Violate a local ordinance by having your trash can too close to the curb? Let your grass grow too high? Miss a payment on your city water/sewer bill? Get identified participating in a demonstration/protest where proper permits weren't obtained? Better start taking the bus!
Given this trend, it doesn't surprise me in the least that government would seek to use another "privilege" like internet access as another Sword of Damocles to hold over the populaces' collective heads to coerce compliance and mete out punishment for unwanted behaviors.
Cheers!
Strat
People with email@msn.com addresses never receive YahooGroups.com invites. I get them bounced back to me routinely.
This IM blocking is just another reason to boycott msn.com, hotmail.com & live.com.
[Of course, YahooGroups now adds spaces in URLs I try to send to my groups. I have to TinyURL everything these days.]
Yahoo has been blocking Photobucket.com links for ages in Yahoo chat. This is nothing new. Seems like it's getting to be pretty much S.O.P. these days for large 'net-service companies that provide multiple services including IM/chatroom-type services. Just forbid URLs to competitions' websites and services from being communicated over your services, and to heck with what the user wants.
Nevermind that most peoples' reactions that discover this that I've seen was anger, disgust, and frustration, along with a fierce determination to *never* use Flickr (Yahoos' photo/video upload service) just because of this stupidity, and even closing accounts there. Way to retain users, there, Yahoo!
I'm waiting to see if it comes to the point that things like the MSN Messenger installer silently removes competing IM/chat service client software. Or when things like Yahoo Messenger blocks the installation of competing services' software, or refuses to install while that software is present, and/or adds entries to the hosts file, blocking access to competitors'websites and services.
When will these corporations learn that users naturally tend to use multiple providers for any one function or service, and that these kinds of childish behaviors only alienates them?
Cheers!
Strat
so how about pointing to actual proof? being asked for proof and saying "it exists, for sure, and boy, is it nasty!" does not constitute proof
Whoosh!
Just to explain (and kill the joke): I was referring to the meme of the Constitution being used as toilet-paper.
Wow, you replied with another strawman. He took issue with "It seems the people on the left most vocal about defending the Constitution and the intent of its founders are the ones most determined to destroy its second amendment.", not your factual statement.
:P
Hey, I was just going for a "+1 Funny" mod!
Cheers!
Strat
Our founders intended us to have freedom of speech, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and to be able to have military weapons to defend ourselves and our nation. It's one package.
Nice strawman. Got any proof?
Proof *does* exist. However, to read it will require a very careful and thorough cleaning beforehand with lots of disinfectant, odor-eliminators, and use of rubber gloves. You can probably find it floating at the top of a sewer reclamation plant pool in the Washington, D.C. area. Oh, and I'd skip lunch if I were you.
HTH HAND
Cheers!
Strat
I have to disagree. From my experience working in the electrical and electronics fields for over 30 years, you can have 50,000 volts across your body, but if the current flowing is only a couple of microamps, you'll barely feel anything. However, increase the current to 5-10 milliamps or more, and you'll get quite a jolt.
So, you have discovered a device that can change some other factor of a power source so that it is always 50,000 volts, but it sometimes delivers 2 microamps and sometimes delivers 5 millamps over the same load? You should publish your work as the rest of the electronics community is unaware of this capability. You'll be famous.
As I replied to Ihlosi, I was simply postulating a theoretical situation to provide an example for the subject I was discussing.
However, since you asked, it is possible to alter the current and voltage output of a power supply with current and voltage regulation circuitry. Google provides many examples. How much current and voltage can be regulated depends on the particular design and the components used, and how deep your pockets are.
Besides, you can see and experience a great example of very high voltages but extremely low current with simple static electrical charges. Very high voltage discharge, but very low current.
This has little to do with the subject of my post, which was that current flow was the determining factor in how damaging/painful an electrical shock is.
Strat
In other words, you can have 50,000 volts or more across your body at a couple microamps of current flow
How ? I = U / R, and R of the human body is in the order of a couple of kOhms. Where do you get the several MOhm resistance you need to get microamps out of 50 kV ?
I was simply postulating a theoretical scenario to provide an example where that much current was flowing through a body based on the current capacity of the power source, not on a power source that was capable of delivering more than what I stated.
Strat
"Local News has learned that the widow of the dead lineman will not receive any pension or insurance benefits, as the excited delirium, which was determined to be the official cause of death, was ruled to be a pre-existing condition and therefor the death was not job-related."
"Local News will attempt to contact the dead linemans' widow and her 4 children for reaction and quotes at the homeless shelter next week. Now for the weather..."
I started out writing this to be funny, but the more I read it, the more plausible it seems...
Strat