The solution to these matters lies properly in our own hands.
If you object, GET OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING.
I don't live in the States. Frankly, I'm inclide to leave you to the height you grew. If american sites become crippled, I'm confident they'll either set up mirrors abroad, or the outside competition will have an offerring.
What does worry me is that the telecom monopolies will attempt to extend this idea to Europe. But given that they're all American companies, I can't really see the French giving in to this, though the English probably already have.
The thing you need to understand is that mathematics isn't a science. You can create lots and lots of perfectly valid mathematical theories, prove them true, and they don't have one tiny bit of them relevent to the real physical world.
There's a lot of debate about this. One thing that can be said concretely is that mathematics involves the application of the scientific method, and rigorous falsifiability conditions. Does that make it a science in and of itself? Well, it is a scientific exploration of the mathematical frameworks we define. But is it "really, real" is I think the question you're asking.
For the "real" part of mathematics, look no further than applied mathematics, and indeed much of mathematical physics. Vast amounts of physical theories are grounded in mathematics, and mathematicians solve many real world problems through the application of mathematical models. Where would general relitivity be without mathematics.
Newton was a mathematical physicist. Mendel used mathematical and statistical theory to prove the laws of inheritance. Shannon showed the link between boolean logic and electronic circuits which birthed digital computers. Mathematics wasn't just a method they used. It was teh very basis, sometimes the only basis, for their physical theories.
Mathematics is both an integral part science and a science in its own right. It's more than just a tool. It's one of the foundations on which science, and indeed modern society is based. Without mathematical theorems, rigor and methods, science as we know it would be something on par with psychoanalysis and political studies.
If a kid on myspace -- aka the backwater of the web where HTML from 1995 is still popular -- is talking about plans to take out a group of students, or running drugs onto campus to sell during lunch, then I think the district not only has a duty, but an obligation, to try and make sure neither happens.
The district has an obligation to inform the police. Anything less than this is complicity, and anything more is taking the law into their own hands.
I have little simpathy for someone who misbehaves then brags about it in a public forum then is concerned that they got into some kind of trouble.
Misbehaves according to whos critereon? What consitutes misbehaviour, and more importantly, is it the states' right, via the school, to both define and "disipline" such misbehaviour outside of the framework of the judiciary?
Of course not. But what is important is that the students think they have the right to do it.
The concepts of "justice" and "rights" are alien to secondary schools, paticularly when it comes to older students. The school requires absolute obiedience to dogmatic, rigid, and frequently bizzare and esoteric rules. The code of conduct requirements in most secondary schools go way beyond anything deemed appropriate in almost every other place of work or learning, including universities and primary schools. Quite frankly, what a lot of older teenagers have to put up with is simply outrageous.
The reason of this essentially goes back to the primary problem with "high schools". You cannot reasonably expect to treat teenagers on the cusp of adulthood like infants, order them about like conscripts, or generally demean them without expecting some kind of backlash. In response to blacklashes, in the form of rebellion against order, schools inevitably further increase the draconianism, compounding the problem. Eventually the draconianism becomes so ludacrious that it even extends outside school hours. This decision is mearly the inevitable destination of a paranoid institution subject to little oversight.
My opinion is that the rot set in with the seemingly innocent inclusion of "homework". I believe it is in fact illegal to require anyone to work outside of company hours in the working world. Yet schools routinely require students to perform work outside of school hours, despite those hours being outside the schools remit. During examination years, it is common for large homework loads to vaporise social time. Some parents will lose relationships with children because of homework.
If any employer demanded this they would be sued, or any reasonable employee would leave. Yet the state requires, by law, that your child must follow schools' demands to perform work in what is by rights, your child's free time. From here, it's a small logical step to further demand obidience to school dogma outside of the grounds.
I often question the wisdom of secondary schooling for older teenagers. Put simply, they are expected to stomach what would precipitate mass protest in the general population. And this while they are nearing the age of majority. In some cases, when they are in fact full citizens of the state. It's anti-democratic.
The difference between "high school" and third level education is startling. In one, you must ask permission to urinate. Three months later in another, you are not even mandated to be present in lectures. Schools know this. That is why they go to such ridiculous extremes as holding students accountable for their private publishings. They must. The logic of their position demands it.
....The kid says he feels bullied, and later he says Columbine happened because kids felt bullied.... The school's wrong because it thinks what this kid did was to threaten to come into school and shoot the place up.....And frankly, the kid earned it by writing what he did. Alluding to Columbine is just goddamned stupid.
Did he? Let's review Columbine for a moment.
Two students began shooting inside Columbine High School yes. But look at the bodies. One teacher and twelve students died. It's clear from this and other incidents that it is students, not teachers, who are in the most danger from high school shooting.
So was this a threat? Or a statement of personal safety concerns? Notice in the preceeding sentances the writer consistently refers to the community at large, others, not himself. He mentions a backlash, but in no way suggests that he himself will be involved. Is he angry, or afraid?
For example, if these same words had been written by a disgruntled parent, and not a student, what would you infer from their meaning? That the parent was going to start a shooting, or was concerned about one?
There was a warp in the second level that took you to the last. It involved killing Mario's father to become his own mother, then climbing the temporal beanstalk discontinutiy to the clouds before the universe collapsed in on itself. If you did this, the final bowser had upgraded armour making him invincible, so you basically had to wait until the portal opened so you could slide. It took 36 hours.
There's some fantastic games coming out for the DS, but I'm not going to be able to enjoy them on such a tiny screen. Ditto for the PSP.
If only developers had the balls to port some of these gems to the TV, the entire industry would be in better shape. Alas, they seem to have a mental block in that regard.
You still haven't given any evidence that it was ideology that got them pulled. It could easily be that automated processes got them included in the first place, then someone noticed what aweful tripe they are and had them removed. Perfectly legitimate.
Could be, could be. There's no way of proving anything absolutely. It's really only a Theory of Google News Censorship afterall.
Let me ask you another question, and please answer clearly yes or no without trying to weasel: do you think these stories are newsworthy?
Seemingly none. Dr Ewan Cameron essentially proved this via human experiments. [Source]
Linda Macdonald, 55 years old, an employment counselor now in Vancouver, is one of those who sued for compensation. "I walked through those doors with a husband on one arm and a guitar on the other and was a healthy person and coherent," she said.
Diagnosed as an acute schizophrenic -- she had gone to Dr. Cameron for treatment -- she spent 86 days in the "sleep room" and was subjected to 109 shock treatments and megadoses of barbiturates and other drugs. Reduced to a Blank Slate
When she got out of the experiment, she could not read or write, had to be toilet-trained and could not remember her husband, her five children or any part of the first 26 years of her life.
The very fact that they were placed on Google News in the first place shows that they met Google's minimum standards for a news source. Now suddenly they don't. I doubt this has much to do with computer algorithims and tabulated metrics.
Bottom line, Google did what they said they wouldn't do. Filter content based on ideology. How long now before Richard Dawkins is taken off?
As a result, news sources are selected without regard to political viewpoint or ideology, enabling you to see how different organisations are reporting the same story.
Google News is a highly unusual news service in that our results are compiled solely by computer algorithms, without human intervention. As a result, news sources are selected without regard to political viewpoint or ideology, enabling you to see how different organisations are reporting the same story. This variety of perspectives and approaches is unique among online news sites, and we consider it essential in helping you stay informed about the issues that matter most to you.
It's right there in bits and bytes. I'd like to know how throwing these feeds out fits in with the above statement, paticularyly the enbolded part.
This is a media outlet choosing not to publish opinion pieces which it thinks would be irresponsible, and possibly contrary to its editorial viewpoint.
This has always been the paradox with public media outlets. On the one hand, they are private companies, subject largely to their own whim. On the other, they laud themselves as public news outlets, severing the greater need of society for information.
Some outlets behave responsibly in this regard and give out all sides with relatively little slant. Others shamelessly abuse their position and deliver a censored, edited and one sided view of select topics, designed only to promote their own world view.
This private choice becomes more sinister when it is coupled with government interest, as is happening more and more today. When private media companies begin to promote not only their own views, but those of the government, to the exclusion of all else, democracy is placed under threat by people's willful gullability.
That's why it's important to avoid censorship, even to stop "hate speech" or "protect the children". What happens when "hate speech", or "protect the children", is redefined by government or powerful interests in an effort to censor views they dislike. What will Google do then?
Anyway, good on you google for not linking to hate as 'news'
Hate is news. It's some of the biggest news out there.
I'm not a big fan of censorship in any form, be it on grounds of security, obsenity, hate speech, political correctness, libel, etc, etc...
If you censor someone, nine times out of ten, they get more press than they otherwise would have made. Case in point, an obscure bigot's net-rag just made it onto the front page of Slashdot.
Sometimes, I want to speak out about accepted mores in society today. Freedom of religion, legality of alcohol, corporate bribery, privacy issues. A lot of people would regard some of my views as offensive. I happen to think they have some merit. According to Google, I should be censored, or at least, they will not link to me, because I may offend or perturb a few people.
Meanwhile I can't walk the streets at night because an angry drunk who goes to church every Sunday is bawling for a fight in camera laden streets and simply will not be prosecuted to any great extent, and in fact I will be blamed for "provoking" him if I attempt to so much as give a glance in his direction? Dare I suggest that this man's freedoms are expensive luxuries for me and it's off to the naughty kids corner for me. Orders of The Most Right Honorably Popularly Elected Class Prefect Google.
And if Big Media gets its way, it will get a lot longer.
But not long enough.
Most people don't care. Most people won't care. They'll simply label their machines, players, tracks as "broken" and go get them "fixed" at their nearest hardware shop/music vendor/online vendor. Do you think the music industry hasn't researched this.
If Aunt Tillies music collection locks her out, she will ring up, pay a bill and go on being fleeced. That's the way it's going to be and the entertainment industry knows it.
Microsoft has essentially built an empire on this model and hollywood can do the same.
By using allofmp3.com you are directly supporting an organization that is involved in child prostitution (pedophilia) and black market arms deals (terrorism)
It's not "just" about parties and finding husbands.
Yes, it's about the people who go to parties to find husbands. There is not a lot there besides a study of the british upper stratum of the time. Whatever meaning and rhetoric there is all takes place within this framework, and rarely strays outside it. While some may find this interesting or alluring, I did not. I found it especially tedious and nowhere near as rewarding a read as I was lead to believe.
The book may have been interesting to some, but to compare it to something like War and Peace is just going too far. A lot of these novels are "classics" for reasons other than their quality.
If you need more convincing, go to my Zfone FAQ page (http://philzimmermann.com/EN/zfone/index-faq.html ) where I address this particular question in great detail.
From TFL:
The Zfone registration page checks your IP address against the list of embargoed countries, then emails you a link that you must click on to start your download, and checks your IP address again when you follow that link, which presumably means you did not receive your email in an embargoed country, and that the download itself did not go to an embargoed country. It shows we made our best efforts to comply with U.S. export laws.
Your going to a lot of trouble for just about no gain at all. This system can and probably does not in any substantive way impede anyone from a blacklisted nation from downloading the software. It only alienates people who are casually interested, i.e. your main user base.
I can understand your situation. You're in a country where it is effectively illegal to publish online any piece of software that contains even the most basic of encryption algorithims. The situation is of course ludacrious, as such algorithims have long been in the public domain, at least as far as knowladge is concerned.
The purpose of the law of course, is not to prevent the export of encryption to forgein countries. They already have these algorithims. Nor is it to prevent access to the terrorist boegyman. They either don't use it, or can easily get access to encryption.
No. The purpose of the law is to hang the sword of damocles over the head of anyone who wants to bring safe and secure communication to the masses. The government doesn't want the masses to encrypt their traffic, and they use this law to impede the distrobution of your software and others like it.
I think you need to give up the ghost here. If your government wants to shut you down. they will, regardless of how much you try to comply with export restrictions it will never be good enough. I think you need to stop playing by rules where you can't possibly win and simply go all out in an effort to get as many people using zfone as possible. All out. Unrestricted downloads, ease of use, ad campaign, browser plugins, whatever. Just do anything to get as many people using encrypted VOIP as you possibly can, because until then, your software will remain one the fringe where it's easier to shut down.
If everyone and the Senator's daughter is using secure VOIP, it's only then that people will realise they have somthing to lose, and you'll have a better defense. Before that everyone who uses SVOIP is "aiding terrorism", not protecting people's privacy. Until Aunt Tillie is using your software, this angle can and will be played. You should do everything to get her onside ASAP.
Hint: many kids don't like reading all that much, especially ponderous books like Moby Dick
A lot of the old classics are completely overrated.
My mother always complained that we read too many "Fantasy" novels. Heads in the clouds. Read some real literature. What did she suggest? Wait for it.
Jane Austin.
Good grief. Apparently back in her day you simply had to read Jane Austin, or Charles Dickens, or some other pop classic tome that itself was trapped in the perpetual fantasy land of the english upper classes, or lower ones.
Best example. Pride and Prejudice. God Awful book. Seriously. Family crisis. Five daughters, none of them married. Family will lose everything if father dies. What do these five young, steadfast, selfsure women do? Campaign for women's rights? Petition their MPs? Write pamphlets? Begin discussion groups?
NO!! They spend the entire novel fopping about at dances and dinners trying to find a rich husband! I cannot express the banality of this novel accuractly. To suggest that anyone can learn morals, ethics, or indeed anything at all from it is a fallacy of the highest order. I can safely say I've gained more out of one Terry Pratchett novel than I could glean from an entire bookshelf of "classics" that people only seem to read to say they have read them.
Slashdot Mirror
The solution to these matters lies properly in our own hands.
If you object, GET OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING.
I don't live in the States. Frankly, I'm inclide to leave you to the height you grew. If american sites become crippled, I'm confident they'll either set up mirrors abroad, or the outside competition will have an offerring.
What does worry me is that the telecom monopolies will attempt to extend this idea to Europe. But given that they're all American companies, I can't really see the French giving in to this, though the English probably already have.
The thing you need to understand is that mathematics isn't a science. You can create lots and lots of perfectly valid mathematical theories, prove them true, and they don't have one tiny bit of them relevent to the real physical world.
There's a lot of debate about this. One thing that can be said concretely is that mathematics involves the application of the scientific method, and rigorous falsifiability conditions. Does that make it a science in and of itself? Well, it is a scientific exploration of the mathematical frameworks we define. But is it "really, real" is I think the question you're asking.
For the "real" part of mathematics, look no further than applied mathematics, and indeed much of mathematical physics. Vast amounts of physical theories are grounded in mathematics, and mathematicians solve many real world problems through the application of mathematical models. Where would general relitivity be without mathematics.
Newton was a mathematical physicist. Mendel used mathematical and statistical theory to prove the laws of inheritance. Shannon showed the link between boolean logic and electronic circuits which birthed digital computers. Mathematics wasn't just a method they used. It was teh very basis, sometimes the only basis, for their physical theories.
Mathematics is both an integral part science and a science in its own right. It's more than just a tool. It's one of the foundations on which science, and indeed modern society is based. Without mathematical theorems, rigor and methods, science as we know it would be something on par with psychoanalysis and political studies.
Why is the Linux version restricted to the US only?
US Export restrictions.
Land of the Free, except when you try to get stuff out.
If a kid on myspace -- aka the backwater of the web where HTML from 1995 is still popular -- is talking about plans to take out a group of students, or running drugs onto campus to sell during lunch, then I think the district not only has a duty, but an obligation, to try and make sure neither happens.
The district has an obligation to inform the police. Anything less than this is complicity, and anything more is taking the law into their own hands.
I have little simpathy for someone who misbehaves then brags about it in a public forum then is concerned that they got into some kind of trouble.
Misbehaves according to whos critereon? What consitutes misbehaviour, and more importantly, is it the states' right, via the school, to both define and "disipline" such misbehaviour outside of the framework of the judiciary?
They have no right to do that.
Of course not. But what is important is that the students think they have the right to do it.
The concepts of "justice" and "rights" are alien to secondary schools, paticularly when it comes to older students. The school requires absolute obiedience to dogmatic, rigid, and frequently bizzare and esoteric rules. The code of conduct requirements in most secondary schools go way beyond anything deemed appropriate in almost every other place of work or learning, including universities and primary schools. Quite frankly, what a lot of older teenagers have to put up with is simply outrageous.
The reason of this essentially goes back to the primary problem with "high schools". You cannot reasonably expect to treat teenagers on the cusp of adulthood like infants, order them about like conscripts, or generally demean them without expecting some kind of backlash. In response to blacklashes, in the form of rebellion against order, schools inevitably further increase the draconianism, compounding the problem. Eventually the draconianism becomes so ludacrious that it even extends outside school hours. This decision is mearly the inevitable destination of a paranoid institution subject to little oversight.
My opinion is that the rot set in with the seemingly innocent inclusion of "homework". I believe it is in fact illegal to require anyone to work outside of company hours in the working world. Yet schools routinely require students to perform work outside of school hours, despite those hours being outside the schools remit. During examination years, it is common for large homework loads to vaporise social time. Some parents will lose relationships with children because of homework.
If any employer demanded this they would be sued, or any reasonable employee would leave. Yet the state requires, by law, that your child must follow schools' demands to perform work in what is by rights, your child's free time. From here, it's a small logical step to further demand obidience to school dogma outside of the grounds.
I often question the wisdom of secondary schooling for older teenagers. Put simply, they are expected to stomach what would precipitate mass protest in the general population. And this while they are nearing the age of majority. In some cases, when they are in fact full citizens of the state. It's anti-democratic.
The difference between "high school" and third level education is startling. In one, you must ask permission to urinate. Three months later in another, you are not even mandated to be present in lectures. Schools know this. That is why they go to such ridiculous extremes as holding students accountable for their private publishings. They must. The logic of their position demands it.
....The kid says he feels bullied, and later he says Columbine happened because kids felt bullied.... The school's wrong because it thinks what this kid did was to threaten to come into school and shoot the place up.....And frankly, the kid earned it by writing what he did. Alluding to Columbine is just goddamned stupid.
Did he? Let's review Columbine for a moment.
Two students began shooting inside Columbine High School yes. But look at the bodies. One teacher and twelve students died. It's clear from this and other incidents that it is students, not teachers, who are in the most danger from high school shooting.
So was this a threat? Or a statement of personal safety concerns? Notice in the preceeding sentances the writer consistently refers to the community at large, others, not himself. He mentions a backlash, but in no way suggests that he himself will be involved. Is he angry, or afraid?
For example, if these same words had been written by a disgruntled parent, and not a student, what would you infer from their meaning? That the parent was going to start a shooting, or was concerned about one?
There was a warp in the second level that took you to the last. It involved killing Mario's father to become his own mother, then climbing the temporal beanstalk discontinutiy to the clouds before the universe collapsed in on itself. If you did this, the final bowser had upgraded armour making him invincible, so you basically had to wait until the portal opened so you could slide. It took 36 hours.
I prefer my gaming on screens larger than 4".
So Say We All!
There's some fantastic games coming out for the DS, but I'm not going to be able to enjoy them on such a tiny screen. Ditto for the PSP.
If only developers had the balls to port some of these gems to the TV, the entire industry would be in better shape. Alas, they seem to have a mental block in that regard.
You still haven't given any evidence that it was ideology that got them pulled. It could easily be that automated processes got them included in the first place, then someone noticed what aweful tripe they are and had them removed. Perfectly legitimate.
Could be, could be. There's no way of proving anything absolutely. It's really only a Theory of Google News Censorship afterall.
Let me ask you another question, and please answer clearly yes or no without trying to weasel: do you think these stories are newsworthy?
They are now.
Why image, what TV can provide?
Seemingly none. Dr Ewan Cameron essentially proved this via human experiments. [Source]
The very fact that they were placed on Google News in the first place shows that they met Google's minimum standards for a news source. Now suddenly they don't. I doubt this has much to do with computer algorithims and tabulated metrics.
Bottom line, Google did what they said they wouldn't do. Filter content based on ideology. How long now before Richard Dawkins is taken off?
It is if you promised not to be biased in your aggregation of news. From Google's own page:
But Google purports to be completely unbiased in its selection.
It's right there in bits and bytes. I'd like to know how throwing these feeds out fits in with the above statement, paticularyly the enbolded part.
Censorship in the name of preserving public discourse!
Is it really censorship when a news syndication site doesnt find your 'news' to be of enough worth for them to carry?
But Google purports themselves to carry the entire content of the web. Yet they choose not to carry some sites because.... they are unworthy.
So are we to conclude that Google indexes only those pages worthy of its approval? That doesn't seem to be part of their stated philosophy.
This is a media outlet choosing not to publish opinion pieces which it thinks would be irresponsible, and possibly contrary to its editorial viewpoint.
This has always been the paradox with public media outlets. On the one hand, they are private companies, subject largely to their own whim. On the other, they laud themselves as public news outlets, severing the greater need of society for information.
Some outlets behave responsibly in this regard and give out all sides with relatively little slant. Others shamelessly abuse their position and deliver a censored, edited and one sided view of select topics, designed only to promote their own world view.
This private choice becomes more sinister when it is coupled with government interest, as is happening more and more today. When private media companies begin to promote not only their own views, but those of the government, to the exclusion of all else, democracy is placed under threat by people's willful gullability.
That's why it's important to avoid censorship, even to stop "hate speech" or "protect the children". What happens when "hate speech", or "protect the children", is redefined by government or powerful interests in an effort to censor views they dislike. What will Google do then?
Anyway, good on you google for not linking to hate as 'news'
Hate is news. It's some of the biggest news out there.
I'm not a big fan of censorship in any form, be it on grounds of security, obsenity, hate speech, political correctness, libel, etc, etc...
If you censor someone, nine times out of ten, they get more press than they otherwise would have made. Case in point, an obscure bigot's net-rag just made it onto the front page of Slashdot.
Sometimes, I want to speak out about accepted mores in society today. Freedom of religion, legality of alcohol, corporate bribery, privacy issues. A lot of people would regard some of my views as offensive. I happen to think they have some merit. According to Google, I should be censored, or at least, they will not link to me, because I may offend or perturb a few people.
Meanwhile I can't walk the streets at night because an angry drunk who goes to church every Sunday is bawling for a fight in camera laden streets and simply will not be prosecuted to any great extent, and in fact I will be blamed for "provoking" him if I attempt to so much as give a glance in his direction? Dare I suggest that this man's freedoms are expensive luxuries for me and it's off to the naughty kids corner for me. Orders of The Most Right Honorably Popularly Elected Class Prefect Google.
They do actually work in similar ways.
Computer and organisims work in totally different ways.
Their behaviours and effects on the other hand, can be described by similar mathematical models.
And if Big Media gets its way, it will get a lot longer.
But not long enough.
Most people don't care. Most people won't care. They'll simply label their machines, players, tracks as "broken" and go get them "fixed" at their nearest hardware shop/music vendor/online vendor. Do you think the music industry hasn't researched this.
If Aunt Tillies music collection locks her out, she will ring up, pay a bill and go on being fleeced. That's the way it's going to be and the entertainment industry knows it.
Microsoft has essentially built an empire on this model and hollywood can do the same.
By using allofmp3.com you are directly supporting an organization that is involved in child prostitution (pedophilia) and black market arms deals (terrorism)
Oh well, no more mp3s for me.
But on the bright side, no more taxes either!
It's not "just" about parties and finding husbands.
Yes, it's about the people who go to parties to find husbands. There is not a lot there besides a study of the british upper stratum of the time. Whatever meaning and rhetoric there is all takes place within this framework, and rarely strays outside it. While some may find this interesting or alluring, I did not. I found it especially tedious and nowhere near as rewarding a read as I was lead to believe.
The book may have been interesting to some, but to compare it to something like War and Peace is just going too far. A lot of these novels are "classics" for reasons other than their quality.
From TFL:
Your going to a lot of trouble for just about no gain at all. This system can and probably does not in any substantive way impede anyone from a blacklisted nation from downloading the software. It only alienates people who are casually interested, i.e. your main user base.
I can understand your situation. You're in a country where it is effectively illegal to publish online any piece of software that contains even the most basic of encryption algorithims. The situation is of course ludacrious, as such algorithims have long been in the public domain, at least as far as knowladge is concerned.
The purpose of the law of course, is not to prevent the export of encryption to forgein countries. They already have these algorithims. Nor is it to prevent access to the terrorist boegyman. They either don't use it, or can easily get access to encryption.
No. The purpose of the law is to hang the sword of damocles over the head of anyone who wants to bring safe and secure communication to the masses. The government doesn't want the masses to encrypt their traffic, and they use this law to impede the distrobution of your software and others like it.
I think you need to give up the ghost here. If your government wants to shut you down. they will, regardless of how much you try to comply with export restrictions it will never be good enough. I think you need to stop playing by rules where you can't possibly win and simply go all out in an effort to get as many people using zfone as possible. All out. Unrestricted downloads, ease of use, ad campaign, browser plugins, whatever. Just do anything to get as many people using encrypted VOIP as you possibly can, because until then, your software will remain one the fringe where it's easier to shut down.
If everyone and the Senator's daughter is using secure VOIP, it's only then that people will realise they have somthing to lose, and you'll have a better defense. Before that everyone who uses SVOIP is "aiding terrorism", not protecting people's privacy. Until Aunt Tillie is using your software, this angle can and will be played. You should do everything to get her onside ASAP.
Hint: many kids don't like reading all that much, especially ponderous books like Moby Dick
A lot of the old classics are completely overrated.
My mother always complained that we read too many "Fantasy" novels. Heads in the clouds. Read some real literature. What did she suggest? Wait for it.
Jane Austin.
Good grief. Apparently back in her day you simply had to read Jane Austin, or Charles Dickens, or some other pop classic tome that itself was trapped in the perpetual fantasy land of the english upper classes, or lower ones.
Best example. Pride and Prejudice. God Awful book. Seriously. Family crisis. Five daughters, none of them married. Family will lose everything if father dies. What do these five young, steadfast, selfsure women do? Campaign for women's rights? Petition their MPs? Write pamphlets? Begin discussion groups?
NO!! They spend the entire novel fopping about at dances and dinners trying to find a rich husband! I cannot express the banality of this novel accuractly. To suggest that anyone can learn morals, ethics, or indeed anything at all from it is a fallacy of the highest order. I can safely say I've gained more out of one Terry Pratchett novel than I could glean from an entire bookshelf of "classics" that people only seem to read to say they have read them.