The larger implication is that this proposed law provides a legal backdoor for the government to seize…I mean steal, privately owned data, which ultimately means there is an end to virtual privacy.
Well, it was a wild ride guys. It had to end sometime.
Can we revolt now?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Can we revolt now?[/quote]
I’m down.
[quote]jawara wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Can we revolt now?
I’m down.[/quote]
You can count on me!
I only saw a hotty moving her lips and smiling at me. What’s this Internet thing you speak of?
Did anyone else see a big pussy near the end?
I heard there’s some internets out Califonia way. I thought I’d go there and try to find some.
yep.
I don’t think the infrastructure will ever be able to be controlled by one entity especially as technology improves.
Eventually we won’t even need an ISP to go online because every computer will be its own provider negotiating multiple HF radio waves to resolve internet addresses via onboard routers, switches, and bridges. In this respect the “internet” would be completely open. There would however still need to be an addressing registry whether it is IP like or based on something completely different…I am thinking if all computers eventually become stand alone routers addresses could just be resolved to the MAC without an IP standard.
Any ideas out there…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t think the infrastructure will ever be able to be controlled by one entity especially as technology improves.
Eventually we won’t even need an ISP to go online because every computer will be its own provider negotiating multiple HF radio waves to resolve internet addresses via onboard routers, switches, and bridges. In this respect the “internet” would be completely open. There would however still need to be an addressing registry whether it is IP like or based on something completely different…I am thinking if all computers eventually become stand alone routers addresses could just be resolved to the MAC without an IP standard.
Any ideas out there…[/quote]
You lost me at switches and bridges. I think I understand the concept though, would it be dependant on living in a highly populated area with lots of devices, or would this idea still work say 50 miles out in the middle of nowhere? I thought I read something about google doing something like this. Like sending out these little boxes which would act as revievers, and transmitters, and everyone could have one and it would basically end up being the internet on steroids x100. I’ll have to dig that story up.
V
V
Al Gore should know the answer. He invented the internets.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t think the infrastructure will ever be able to be controlled by one entity especially as technology improves.
Eventually we won’t even need an ISP to go online because every computer will be its own provider negotiating multiple HF radio waves to resolve internet addresses via onboard routers, switches, and bridges. In this respect the “internet” would be completely open. There would however still need to be an addressing registry whether it is IP like or based on something completely different…I am thinking if all computers eventually become stand alone routers addresses could just be resolved to the MAC without an IP standard.
Any ideas out there…
You lost me at switches and bridges. I think I understand the concept though, would it be dependant on living in a highly populated area with lots of devices, or would this idea still work say 50 miles out in the middle of nowhere? I thought I read something about google doing something like this. Like sending out these little boxes which would act as revievers, and transmitters, and everyone could have one and it would basically end up being the internet on steroids x100. I’ll have to dig that story up.
V
V[/quote]
A switch, bridge, and router are for all intents and purposes the same piece of equipment. They are just devises that are used to send packets of data. In the old days of the internet – like 10 years ago – they were separate pieces of hardware. Routers can do the work of the two other devices.
To answer your question I am not sure what the limitations would be. I guess it would depend on the power of the receivers and transmitters. In densely populated areas we would not need something so powerful being able to piggyback off of other closely placed devices. Out in the country maybe one would need a satellite like device…
This is the idea I have: The router will reside on our PC just like an ethernet card. The difference is it would have to work as a stand alone device from the PC to relay 3rd party data – i.e., data that we did not request for ourselves. Our PC would still have to go thru the TCP/IP protocol stack to request a service, though we would probably by default get the highest priority for service.
I am also thinking that as memory becomes cheaper, larger, and faster there will be huge data caches that we will be able to access as a failover. For example, I request a http service from T-Nation but the service is temporarily busy so it goes to one of the many various data caches until the real time service becomes available. Data caches would have to update on a load available basis. This obviously gets difficult to do with high volumes of real time data updates but nothing that some solidly designed software cannot handle.
The real difficulty would be engineering the sending and receiving device and designing a protocol to resolve addressing.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t think the infrastructure will ever be able to be controlled by one entity especially as technology improves.
Eventually we won’t even need an ISP to go online because every computer will be its own provider negotiating multiple HF radio waves to resolve internet addresses via onboard routers, switches, and bridges. In this respect the “internet” would be completely open. There would however still need to be an addressing registry whether it is IP like or based on something completely different…I am thinking if all computers eventually become stand alone routers addresses could just be resolved to the MAC without an IP standard.
Any ideas out there…
You lost me at switches and bridges. I think I understand the concept though, would it be dependant on living in a highly populated area with lots of devices, or would this idea still work say 50 miles out in the middle of nowhere? I thought I read something about google doing something like this. Like sending out these little boxes which would act as revievers, and transmitters, and everyone could have one and it would basically end up being the internet on steroids x100. I’ll have to dig that story up.
V
V
A switch, bridge, and router are for all intents and purposes the same piece of equipment. They are just devises that are used to send packets of data. In the old days of the internet – like 10 years ago – they were separate pieces of hardware. Routers can do the work of the two other devices.
To answer your question I am not sure what the limitations would be. I guess it would depend on the power of the receivers and transmitters. In densely populated areas we would not need something so powerful being able to piggyback off of other closely placed devices. Out in the country maybe one would need a satellite like device…
This is the idea I have: The router will reside on our PC just like an ethernet card. The difference is it would have to work as a stand alone device from the PC to relay 3rd party data – i.e., data that we did not request for ourselves. Our PC would still have to go thru the TCP/IP protocol stack to request a service, though we would probably by default get the highest priority for service.
I am also thinking that as memory becomes cheaper, larger, and faster there will be huge data caches that we will be able to access as a failover. For example, I request a http service from T-Nation but the service is temporarily busy so it goes to one of the many various data caches until the real time service becomes available. Data caches would have to update on a load available basis. This obviously gets difficult to do with high volumes of real time data updates but nothing that some solidly designed software cannot handle.
The real difficulty would be engineering the sending and receiving device and designing a protocol to resolve addressing.[/quote]
Hmm, what you describe sounds very very similar to the thing I read about that google was looking into making, oh they also said they would lilkley be just giving them out. I don’t know how believable that is but I would think you would have to have some type of initial plan to get people to use them, I mean who is going to buy the first one, it won’t even work by itself, it needs a lot of other ones to function properly. So maybe they will give the first few million of them away for free.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t think the infrastructure will ever be able to be controlled by one entity especially as technology improves.
Eventually we won’t even need an ISP to go online because every computer will be its own provider negotiating multiple HF radio waves to resolve internet addresses via onboard routers, switches, and bridges. In this respect the “internet” would be completely open. There would however still need to be an addressing registry whether it is IP like or based on something completely different…I am thinking if all computers eventually become stand alone routers addresses could just be resolved to the MAC without an IP standard.
Any ideas out there…
You lost me at switches and bridges. I think I understand the concept though, would it be dependant on living in a highly populated area with lots of devices, or would this idea still work say 50 miles out in the middle of nowhere? I thought I read something about google doing something like this. Like sending out these little boxes which would act as revievers, and transmitters, and everyone could have one and it would basically end up being the internet on steroids x100. I’ll have to dig that story up.
V
V
A switch, bridge, and router are for all intents and purposes the same piece of equipment. They are just devises that are used to send packets of data. In the old days of the internet – like 10 years ago – they were separate pieces of hardware. Routers can do the work of the two other devices.
To answer your question I am not sure what the limitations would be. I guess it would depend on the power of the receivers and transmitters. In densely populated areas we would not need something so powerful being able to piggyback off of other closely placed devices. Out in the country maybe one would need a satellite like device…
This is the idea I have: The router will reside on our PC just like an ethernet card. The difference is it would have to work as a stand alone device from the PC to relay 3rd party data – i.e., data that we did not request for ourselves. Our PC would still have to go thru the TCP/IP protocol stack to request a service, though we would probably by default get the highest priority for service.
I am also thinking that as memory becomes cheaper, larger, and faster there will be huge data caches that we will be able to access as a failover. For example, I request a http service from T-Nation but the service is temporarily busy so it goes to one of the many various data caches until the real time service becomes available. Data caches would have to update on a load available basis. This obviously gets difficult to do with high volumes of real time data updates but nothing that some solidly designed software cannot handle.
The real difficulty would be engineering the sending and receiving device and designing a protocol to resolve addressing.
Hmm, what you describe sounds very very similar to the thing I read about that google was looking into making, oh they also said they would lilkley be just giving them out. I don’t know how believable that is but I would think you would have to have some type of initial plan to get people to use them, I mean who is going to buy the first one, it won’t even work by itself, it needs a lot of other ones to function properly. So maybe they will give the first few million of them away for free.
V[/quote]
Backwards compatibility. It would probably evolve a lot like cell phone technology.
I agree that it will not be free unless the issuer has some plans to control all the data that ever gets sent and received.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS you were in the Marines right? Do you know anything about the Army’s EWO program?
jawara, no I am not familiar with it but I assume it has something to do with electronic warfare…?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
jawara, no I am not familiar with it but I assume it has something to do with electronic warfare…?[/quote]
Wait are you saying you are an ex US military member? Dude the governmnent told me you’re a terrorist, or at least could be. Get off our website for we start torturin ya!
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
jawara, no I am not familiar with it but I assume it has something to do with electronic warfare…?
Wait are you saying you are an ex US military member? Dude the governmnent told me you’re a terrorist, or at least could be. Get off our website for we start torturin ya!
V[/quote]
On kinda a funny and related note, I have some friends who are former military intelligence friends (now working as civilians in Defense Intelligence Agency) that keep a facebook page and even joke about using it to gather “hum-int”. Some of the stuff they tell me really scares me…they are some real whack jobs that get off on a power trip, but I love the dumb fuckers.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
jawara, no I am not familiar with it but I assume it has something to do with electronic warfare…?
Wait are you saying you are an ex US military member? Dude the governmnent told me you’re a terrorist, or at least could be. Get off our website for we start torturin ya!
V[/quote]
LOL, I aint gonna run.
Anyway, all I’m going to say is that a local sheik noticed that his cell phone, and key fob stopped working whenever we can around. Thats all I’m gonna say…