I've been dabbling with PFsense and it's also nowhere near dealign with IPV6. Great programmers involved, great software, but they just don't have the manpower, being open source donationware. I suspect all the routers ISP etc companies are going to have a huge race with all the ipv6 stuff. No looking back now.
How about we invest 53 billion working on automated driving. Then I can take my private car AND not have to drive.
Because private cars a massive waste, slow, polluting, tight, very crash prone, and overall obsolete. But let's see. Remove most of the driver autonomy so he doesn't cause accidents, adapt the roads offer guides to cars better. Fit the roads with electric power. Slowly optimize cars to fit the road. That's logically going to evolve, slowly, into public-or-private cars that come get you when you press a button, and travel with no stops origin-to-destination. It's already invented though, and it's called PRT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit
But if you like driving so much you should get a job doing it all day. There are lots, a huge amount of the US labor force works on nothing but driving back and forth and maintaining vehicles and roads. I've done it myself for a long time when I couldn't get a coding job. Hugely wasteful, but hey, it provides jobs. Yes, wasteful activities require lots of work, provide lots of jobs, and can be financially viable. Not all jobs are equally beneficial to society, an urban planner or teacher is more helpful to everyone than someone who works on obsolete things. Let's do useful and intelligent jobs, not just any jobs.
"Sure. Myself, personally, having both been driven, driven myself and taken the train[1] 250 miles on a fairly regular basis: I'd rather take the train. They have better food and there is alcohol available."
Hmm....guess you don't drive right...I have no problem finding good food or alcohol on driving trips either...
That doesn't compare. I don't see restaurants going down the freeway at 150mph while people calmly sit inside, walk around, and eat and drink while they travel. I understand driving may be fun, but that's only because there is challenge, risk and danger involved. But in the overall picture of modern transportation, each person conducting an engine at 80 or 100 mph is not even fast, and nowhere near safe or efficient.
Why would we want to imitate two countries that have spent the last 15+ years in economic decline (called "the lost decade" in Japan)?
Flawed argument. Nobody proposed anything similar to copying the entire country, it's culture, political problems, history, and economic problems. Not even the entire transportation system or even the entire train system. But they undeniably have the US beat in train technology, and have the world leadership in that technology. It's entirely recommended to learn anything from anyone who has done it well. No need to copy their other shortcomings. It's a groundless argument to claim that when importing any technology from anywhere you're also importing all of that country's worst failings. Even if the trains built with their technology became failures, it's not like the United States economy would sink for 15 years because of that 53 billion. Wikipedia lists US GDP at $14.6 trillion (2010). That's only one year, the train would take several to build, and financing can spread over many years more.
I don't see why getting into the movies doesn't require an extensive security check. Perfect occasion to hurt a lot of people there. Or on a bus, subway, ball game, or even a walk through Times Square. All dense concentrations of people, opportunities to kill many more people than on an airplane. Heck I think a ballgame has more people more exposed and is easier to setup than the wtc was at the time.
Better yet, wait for the next Comcast outage, then reconnect everyone. Just reconnect everyone to your neighborhood wifi mesh with something like open mesh or LocustWorld.
Knowing Internet could have been restored when it was needed and was not is rather sad. An act of war against a falling dictator is quite a bit less risky. The saddest part of this whole event is not fully supporting 82 million people at the brink of ending their dictatorship and achieving democracy, out of fear of the possibility they won't elect your friends. After 30 years of supporting their dictator, it wouldn't be surprising. I'd think that if the US authorities and media has thrown full support and started egging people on to get real democracy and freedom, there was a good chance they would elect a government for peace and stability, and in the process US-friendly . But fear and blowback is a bitch, isnt it.
That's what we need. Everyone should own a home mesh router, with multiple fiber and wifi links. And we need to run our servers too. We link our InterCitizen networks to other networks any way we please. TCP/IP is a form of speech if I ever saw one. If I discuss illegal stuff over any sort of form of speech I wish, you can arrest me, for that crime, but you can't censor my connection for it any more than you can censor my copying machine, soapbox or pen and paper.
Indeed there severe questions on lack of effective freedoms, government abuse, and several similar isses on all sides in the US. And everyone wastes time debating it among themselves, wagging fingers at each other, as if any of that would influence the gov't, laws and corporations. Change talk should be on large protests and nothing else. Egypt shows one thing clearly, discussions with a government is best done by millions of organized protesters, less than that is of mess less effectiveness. Freedoms in many countries have numerous restrictions as well, the legality of establishing such a thing as "free speech zones" in the US were a laughable, excellent example. "Yes you have freedom but with limits and I make them" is just a soft-speaking newspeak way of completely doing away with any real rights.
I'd rather have the data go through random computers than ones controlled by corporations.
Then you're a fool.
Both are bad options. Essentially, apart from the technical solution, overall we have to choose between a trust-everyone-and-verify-everyone or trust-nobody-and-verification-impossible social model. The legal, social, and technical options will follow. Privacy, secrecy, and anonymitity solutions follow in parallel. The trust-some-but-not-others model is the current model, but it shows problems of not being able to reliably choose which model to which people. We do not trust each other with our privacy, but we are forced to trust somewhat random, unknown government, corporations, spies and police sectors.
Technically I think that would mean full-opacity-and-encrypt-everything, or full-transparency-and-encrypt-nothing-verify-everything. Following current social model, we have a tech system of trusting some but not others, not always very coherently.
From a planning perspective, I think the ideal, a society we'd like to have but do not right now, would be full transparency, in other words, trust-everyone-verify-everything model. The trust-nobody-full-paranoia-total-obscurity model doesn't work on a long term from a social development point of view, although it's used in current society commonly, for info battle basically. Working towards social transparency, the very first step would be to require trasnparency from authorities, at the maximum possible levels, and consisently reviewed towards increasing transparency. Aftter that, we can speak of requiring transparency from private sectors, to coordinate and check for wrongdoing, and after that, from people in general.
The current model, of an illusion of full privacy rights, when these privacy right don't actually work very well, where we are basically not trusting each other with our info, but trusting all higher authorities with or without our consent, and defending their secrecy and right to police us in total privacy to boot, is basically just naive or pro-authorities, and is dangerously easility tilted towards towards authoritarian control.
My point isn't that there's no moral difference but merely that the morality of the situation as a whole is rather unclear.
From another point of view, everyone contributes something to society, like labor, taxes, votes and opinions, action and inaction. And society is full of wrongs. Our society. Assuming a point of view that everyone can potentially influence numerous poeple on some level, vastly increasing with a only a few speaking and debate classes, most everyone has at the very least negligently declined to assume their social obligation to participate in society, and do even the minimum, that which is within their reach to improve it, creating therefore liability for society's ills. Not withing the current legal system however, as in general everyone only is responsible for what one has directly caused. But legal concepts evolve, with society, and social responsibilities translating to legal are appearing within the legal system. I believe it is called objective and subjective responsibility.
A problem I now remember with freenet-style encrypted caching is that it's highly likely you're (if even partially) hosting CP on your computer/access node.
From what I read it's indeed supposed to be hosting stuff potentially on all nodes. That makes everyone a server as well as client. Modifying the architecture entirely. And the responsibility landscape as well. A legal case would likely become a bit of a challenge for everyone involved.
A visit from the men in black SUVs will soon sort out all those "independent ISPs".
That can always happen. It's quite different from signing up for their ISP. Or for one single massive ISP that is forced to bow down to their whims. Cellphones with some sort of bluetooth crowd messaging protocol could be interesting.
I see. We are forced to argue over anything pointless. Old English measurement units and Latin pronunciation rules, today? 18th century Hutu religious hierarchy traditions?
To put it another way, everyone is a member and perhaps organizer in several organizations. A family, company, social sphere, bank, school, neighborhood, opinion group, social class, club. Except for insane or radical loner people, almost everyone is inside at least one "organization".
To say it's not an organized group is either denial or not knowing what an organization is. Disorganized groups can't coordinate anything. If you can coordinate a night at the movies with three people, you have a three member organized group, with common objectives and interest of entertainment. Decentralized organization, loosely organized group, nameless and with shifting leadership, even a small and pointless group, whatever it is, but organized in some fashion nevertheless. Truly anonymous, in fact, if they coordinate any action, would mean a secret organization.
And before someone says what they're doing is illegal, criminal, etc -- there is something called civil disobedience. It is not legal, but it is political, and people practicing are generally, depending on the infractions of course, arrested as political prisoners, prisoner of conscience, etc. And are judged as such, on a case by case basis.
The point is, is there anonymity, or not? Anonymity is legal in the US, exactly for the use of activism and whistleblowing. So, where is it? Yes, these guys didn't know how to achieve it properly. Well, is anyone going to teach them? Or just keep letting them getting arrested and criticizing?
Slashdot Mirror
Its not like they need new hardware to achieve blahblah. They need only offer an arglebargle flatucaster
Translated for Joe six-pack and grandma. Expect a new line of linksys "now with ipv6!" because that was the plan all along.
Most likely yes. Evidence needed. Lawsuits?
I've been dabbling with PFsense and it's also nowhere near dealign with IPV6. Great programmers involved, great software, but they just don't have the manpower, being open source donationware. I suspect all the routers ISP etc companies are going to have a huge race with all the ipv6 stuff. No looking back now.
How about we invest 53 billion working on automated driving. Then I can take my private car AND not have to drive.
Because private cars a massive waste, slow, polluting, tight, very crash prone, and overall obsolete. But let's see. Remove most of the driver autonomy so he doesn't cause accidents, adapt the roads offer guides to cars better. Fit the roads with electric power. Slowly optimize cars to fit the road. That's logically going to evolve, slowly, into public-or-private cars that come get you when you press a button, and travel with no stops origin-to-destination. It's already invented though, and it's called PRT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit
But if you like driving so much you should get a job doing it all day. There are lots, a huge amount of the US labor force works on nothing but driving back and forth and maintaining vehicles and roads. I've done it myself for a long time when I couldn't get a coding job. Hugely wasteful, but hey, it provides jobs. Yes, wasteful activities require lots of work, provide lots of jobs, and can be financially viable. Not all jobs are equally beneficial to society, an urban planner or teacher is more helpful to everyone than someone who works on obsolete things. Let's do useful and intelligent jobs, not just any jobs.
Hmm....guess you don't drive right...I have no problem finding good food or alcohol on driving trips either...
That doesn't compare. I don't see restaurants going down the freeway at 150mph while people calmly sit inside, walk around, and eat and drink while they travel. I understand driving may be fun, but that's only because there is challenge, risk and danger involved. But in the overall picture of modern transportation, each person conducting an engine at 80 or 100 mph is not even fast, and nowhere near safe or efficient.
Why would we want to imitate two countries that have spent the last 15+ years in economic decline (called "the lost decade" in Japan)?
Flawed argument. Nobody proposed anything similar to copying the entire country, it's culture, political problems, history, and economic problems. Not even the entire transportation system or even the entire train system. But they undeniably have the US beat in train technology, and have the world leadership in that technology. It's entirely recommended to learn anything from anyone who has done it well. No need to copy their other shortcomings. It's a groundless argument to claim that when importing any technology from anywhere you're also importing all of that country's worst failings. Even if the trains built with their technology became failures, it's not like the United States economy would sink for 15 years because of that 53 billion. Wikipedia lists US GDP at $14.6 trillion (2010). That's only one year, the train would take several to build, and financing can spread over many years more.
You know where else you can find a dense concentration of people (or a concentration of dense people)??? In the security line at the airport!
I'm not sure why. Something makes me imagine that attack would be a 100% american motivated event.
I don't see why getting into the movies doesn't require an extensive security check. Perfect occasion to hurt a lot of people there. Or on a bus, subway, ball game, or even a walk through Times Square. All dense concentrations of people, opportunities to kill many more people than on an airplane. Heck I think a ballgame has more people more exposed and is easier to setup than the wtc was at the time.
Just kidding
If you meant Microsoft, you were right. There's a bug in their world dominance system of one-world-one-OS. The bug is called "little gadgets".
Better yet, wait for the next Comcast outage, then reconnect everyone. Just reconnect everyone to your neighborhood wifi mesh with something like open mesh or LocustWorld.
IPV6 will help a lot in doing it.
Knowing Internet could have been restored when it was needed and was not is rather sad. An act of war against a falling dictator is quite a bit less risky. The saddest part of this whole event is not fully supporting 82 million people at the brink of ending their dictatorship and achieving democracy, out of fear of the possibility they won't elect your friends. After 30 years of supporting their dictator, it wouldn't be surprising. I'd think that if the US authorities and media has thrown full support and started egging people on to get real democracy and freedom, there was a good chance they would elect a government for peace and stability, and in the process US-friendly . But fear and blowback is a bitch, isnt it.
That's what we need. Everyone should own a home mesh router, with multiple fiber and wifi links. And we need to run our servers too. We link our InterCitizen networks to other networks any way we please. TCP/IP is a form of speech if I ever saw one. If I discuss illegal stuff over any sort of form of speech I wish, you can arrest me, for that crime, but you can't censor my connection for it any more than you can censor my copying machine, soapbox or pen and paper.
Indeed there severe questions on lack of effective freedoms, government abuse, and several similar isses on all sides in the US. And everyone wastes time debating it among themselves, wagging fingers at each other, as if any of that would influence the gov't, laws and corporations. Change talk should be on large protests and nothing else. Egypt shows one thing clearly, discussions with a government is best done by millions of organized protesters, less than that is of mess less effectiveness. Freedoms in many countries have numerous restrictions as well, the legality of establishing such a thing as "free speech zones" in the US were a laughable, excellent example. "Yes you have freedom but with limits and I make them" is just a soft-speaking newspeak way of completely doing away with any real rights.
Civil disobedience is sort of like hacking the law to push it into crisis change and review mode, for it to become better. Risk involved.
I'd rather have the data go through random computers than ones controlled by corporations.
Then you're a fool.
Both are bad options. Essentially, apart from the technical solution, overall we have to choose between a trust-everyone-and-verify-everyone or trust-nobody-and-verification-impossible social model. The legal, social, and technical options will follow. Privacy, secrecy, and anonymitity solutions follow in parallel. The trust-some-but-not-others model is the current model, but it shows problems of not being able to reliably choose which model to which people. We do not trust each other with our privacy, but we are forced to trust somewhat random, unknown government, corporations, spies and police sectors.
Technically I think that would mean full-opacity-and-encrypt-everything, or full-transparency-and-encrypt-nothing-verify-everything. Following current social model, we have a tech system of trusting some but not others, not always very coherently.
From a planning perspective, I think the ideal, a society we'd like to have but do not right now, would be full transparency, in other words, trust-everyone-verify-everything model. The trust-nobody-full-paranoia-total-obscurity model doesn't work on a long term from a social development point of view, although it's used in current society commonly, for info battle basically. Working towards social transparency, the very first step would be to require trasnparency from authorities, at the maximum possible levels, and consisently reviewed towards increasing transparency. Aftter that, we can speak of requiring transparency from private sectors, to coordinate and check for wrongdoing, and after that, from people in general.
The current model, of an illusion of full privacy rights, when these privacy right don't actually work very well, where we are basically not trusting each other with our info, but trusting all higher authorities with or without our consent, and defending their secrecy and right to police us in total privacy to boot, is basically just naive or pro-authorities, and is dangerously easility tilted towards towards authoritarian control.
My point isn't that there's no moral difference but merely that the morality of the situation as a whole is rather unclear.
From another point of view, everyone contributes something to society, like labor, taxes, votes and opinions, action and inaction. And society is full of wrongs. Our society. Assuming a point of view that everyone can potentially influence numerous poeple on some level, vastly increasing with a only a few speaking and debate classes, most everyone has at the very least negligently declined to assume their social obligation to participate in society, and do even the minimum, that which is within their reach to improve it, creating therefore liability for society's ills. Not withing the current legal system however, as in general everyone only is responsible for what one has directly caused. But legal concepts evolve, with society, and social responsibilities translating to legal are appearing within the legal system. I believe it is called objective and subjective responsibility.
A problem I now remember with freenet-style encrypted caching is that it's highly likely you're (if even partially) hosting CP on your computer/access node.
From what I read it's indeed supposed to be hosting stuff potentially on all nodes. That makes everyone a server as well as client. Modifying the architecture entirely. And the responsibility landscape as well. A legal case would likely become a bit of a challenge for everyone involved.
Economy is too centralized too, need to decentralize money. Let each community have their scrip, and everyone chooses whichever one they want to use.
A visit from the men in black SUVs will soon sort out all those "independent ISPs".
That can always happen. It's quite different from signing up for their ISP. Or for one single massive ISP that is forced to bow down to their whims. Cellphones with some sort of bluetooth crowd messaging protocol could be interesting.
http://www.kingsbridgelink.co.uk/
http://www.open-mesh.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_community_network
http://freenetproject.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeshBox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking
I see. We are forced to argue over anything pointless. Old English measurement units and Latin pronunciation rules, today? 18th century Hutu religious hierarchy traditions?
To put it another way, everyone is a member and perhaps organizer in several organizations. A family, company, social sphere, bank, school, neighborhood, opinion group, social class, club. Except for insane or radical loner people, almost everyone is inside at least one "organization".
To say it's not an organized group is either denial or not knowing what an organization is. Disorganized groups can't coordinate anything. If you can coordinate a night at the movies with three people, you have a three member organized group, with common objectives and interest of entertainment. Decentralized organization, loosely organized group, nameless and with shifting leadership, even a small and pointless group, whatever it is, but organized in some fashion nevertheless. Truly anonymous, in fact, if they coordinate any action, would mean a secret organization.
And before someone says what they're doing is illegal, criminal, etc -- there is something called civil disobedience. It is not legal, but it is political, and people practicing are generally, depending on the infractions of course, arrested as political prisoners, prisoner of conscience, etc. And are judged as such, on a case by case basis.
The point is, is there anonymity, or not? Anonymity is legal in the US, exactly for the use of activism and whistleblowing. So, where is it? Yes, these guys didn't know how to achieve it properly. Well, is anyone going to teach them? Or just keep letting them getting arrested and criticizing?