I've always thought they should combine distributed processing projects with porn, resulting in a DPP program that shows you porn and uses all your spare processing cycles. Win-Win.Nouw said:
Poll: Sentate Committee passed "Internet Kill switch" Bill
- Thread starter McNinja
- Start date
Recommended Videos
See, I don't think it is actually an infringement of the freedom of speech, as long as they don't try to censor anything. Cause as long as they still let us say whatever we want, we still have freedom of speech. They're are just watching us say whatever we want. But as long as they don't act on it (Without good reason), or censor it, I don't think any rights are actually being violated.Mackheath said:
Anyway, my opinion on this is that it seems kind of circular and ultimately self defeating. Look at these points from the article that Grant Crawford posted:
Essentially, if the point of this kill switch is to prevent people from blowing up our power plants that use the internet, then wont shutting off the internet render our power plants just as useless? Viruses are far more easily produced than bombs, so it seems to me that shutting down the internet to protect power plants that need the internet to work from the internet seems pointless. We might as well just make them closed wired networks.Grant Crawford said:
See, if we want this kill switch to be useful, then we cant go willy nilly hooking things up to the internet. If the internet is dangerous to us, then it makes no sense to depend on it. But, if we cut off all the stuff we want to protect from the internet, then the reason we invented this kill switch in the first place becomes null.
Either way, the kill switch seems to me like it defeats its own purpose. We can't absolute freedom and absolute security. And maybe we should just get better protection for the things that need protection. The government should be trying to distant us from harm, not tell drag us into it.
I have mixed emotions about this thread. The internet should stay in the hands of us, the people of the internet. If someone is in control of large bits of it, that's a problem, no matter who happens to be controlling it. Federal control of the internet in any way is bad, and this is just lending to that. But in the same way, have we overlooked that ISP control represents the same thing? I personally don't see a difference between what's happening here (the government having the ability to oversee your connection to the web, and also the ability to shut it down if need be) and what's been happening since the dawn of PCs (the ISP having the ability to oversee your connection to the web, and also the ability to shut it down if need be). Except perhaps the ISP charges more. I think the web should be open in every way, and completely controlled by the user. So as soon as I figure out how the hell that could be possible, I'll get back to you.
