81–90 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counter argument: why do you want to allow gay-married Muslim homosexual commies to sneak into our country and piss on our burning flag after taking our jobs and blowing up our kindergartens? Is that what you want? puppy-AIDS and Sharia law?
That is not an argument, that is a propaganda tool used against the easily-persuaded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If by favoring free communication over the internet you mean "my email will be private", I think you can safely assume large majorities will be in favor of it.
Not at all. If the question is "Should the government be able to access email to track down pornographers and terrorists?", the answer is that 99% of the population is in favor of it.
Here we go again. It's 2011 and our governments still don't understand the Internet. They don't understand that it's way bigger than them. They don't understand that it's not possible to monitor, govern, control, tax it, simply because it's so cheap and simple to circumvent any of these measures and there's plenty of motivation to do so.
Actually, it is trivial to do all those things. You forget that govt controls access to bit transport.
The hard part is allowing extensive "appropriate" access and denying those things, but with limited appropriate access.....
If govt has a choice between doing what it wants and allowing you extensive access, what do you think will win?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but have you considered how you would disprove the alternate possibility that the "easily-persuaded majority" is a bogeyman conjured up by the media to explain why the candidate that everyone you know voted for wasn't elected?
You assume I take my opinions from "the media". No. You can tail -f the legal Changelog of your favorite state and deduce the fuckedupness-beyond-repair of the populace.
Cyberterrorism is a bullshit argument. If you don't want your machines to be attacked from the Internet, don't connect them to the Internet. In fact, governments and big companies already do this! At work, we have an IP network called BARONET. It's like the Internet except it's not. There is a bridge on one machine that proxies HTTP requests from this network to the Internet. There are no routes to the Internet. This…
The trouble with this kind of thing from the perspective of government is that not everybody who runs important things does it. Those that do may not always do it well, and if they don't, there generally isn't anyone in government with the expertise or responsibility to tell them things like "if you actually cared about security, you wouldn't do that". The other problem with it is anthropomorphic Stuxnet, which giggl…
Could you explain what does that `anthropomorphic Stuxnet' stand for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am writing this from China and unfortunately it is the other way round. Tor is beaten by the Great Firewall of China. Since the list of nodes is available to anyone who connects to the Tor network, blocking them is trivial. So most of the time it is not possible to connect. And when you do manage to connect the speed will make 14.4 kbit/s modem feel fast.
Tor has a way to work around this - bridge nodes. They're hidden and their IPs are distributed in various non-batch forms (e-mail, social networks, http://bridges.torproject.org ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You assume I take my opinions from "the media". No. You can tail -f the legal Changelog of your favorite state and deduce the fuckedupness-beyond-repair of the populace.
I'm confused, you seem to be assuming that my favorite state is democratic somehow? Otherwise I can only deduce fuckedupness of the politicians, which is not in dispute.
I know Texas' redistricting shenanigans are sleazy, but it's still a democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't really the internet, just a web proxy.
That's all that will be left if these sniveling fuckers get their way.
I personally, am prepared to walk away. I grew up with BBSs and 2400bps dialup, only one user at a time connecting. It was not horrible. I remeber downloading .gl video files over dialup, too. This level of communication is completely feasible today without relying on any corporate or government owned network.
We can start anew and create a network controlled by the citizens of the world. We may not have HD video at first, but we can have Twitter and a Lynx resurgence....
...or live together in a secluded valley in Colorado, protected by an air-wave reflection device.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many years ago I worked on a secure system that comprised a Sun running the webserver, connected over a 9-pin RS232 serial cable to another box running Windows 95, on which the secure part of the system ran, which was in turn connected via an ISDN line to some mainframe somewhere. I've never heard of a case of Windows being compromised via the serial port!
> I've never heard of Windows being compromised via the serial port! As a point of order: serial port exploits exist for other OSes (Linux, Juniper, Cisco, APC...) and also for windows virtual com ports so whilst probably not trivial it's not entirely infeasible either.