Wifi mesh networks are a fascinating alternative to hardwired connections. But that is at the same networking level as the Internet. The focus of the debate is on decentralizing the protocols running on top of that, www specifically. Check out this list of alternatives: https://gist.github.com/moshest/aea88f152fac89e1c526
I might be misreading the quote, but I think the "isn't important" is referring to the distinction between "infra-" versus "super-" structure.
Also, although John Oliver is very funny, the video you linked to was regarding maintaining existing infrastructure, which is only tangential to the quote from Jerry Pournelle. I think the quote is about the tendency of civilization to create more structure (new structure), and because bureaucracy benefits from structure, then bureaucracy grows as civilization does. But the real crux of the argument is that bureaucracies care more about self-preservation and expanding than they do about fulfilling their original purpose, i.e., bureaucracy is a parasite that grows as the structural output of its host grows.
I think you need to re-read the article. The Internet is successfully decentralized; it's the world-wide web that is not. Internet != web
So if the technological marvel that we call the Internet can be decentralized, why do you find it so impossible that a protocol running on top of it cannot also be decentralized?
Making a law that impinges freedom of expression needs more justification than a speculative worst case scenario.
I understand the argument that showing proof of who you voted for can facilitate vote-buying, but I don't believe such an important freedom as free speech/expression should be limited based only on "what-if" arguments.
Re: M. Kahle's presentation
You can see alternative formats of the video here:
First video:
https://archive.org/details/BrewsterKahleTNWConferenceEurope2015
MP4 download:
https://archive.org/download/BrewsterKahleTNWConferenceEurope2015/BrewsterKahleTNWConferenceEurope2015.mp4
Second video:
https://archive.org/details/bresterkahlenetgain
MP4 download:
https://archive.org/download/bresterkahlenetgain/brewsterkahledistributedweb_720p.mp4
Re: Re: Re: Noble ideas, but doomed to failure
Wifi mesh networks are a fascinating alternative to hardwired connections. But that is at the same networking level as the Internet. The focus of the debate is on decentralizing the protocols running on top of that, www specifically. Check out this list of alternatives: https://gist.github.com/moshest/aea88f152fac89e1c526
Re: Re: Noble ideas, but doomed to failure
I found this Gist:
A collection of peer-to-peer decentralized projects
Re: Re: Jerry Pournelle
I might be misreading the quote, but I think the "isn't important" is referring to the distinction between "infra-" versus "super-" structure.
Also, although John Oliver is very funny, the video you linked to was regarding maintaining existing infrastructure, which is only tangential to the quote from Jerry Pournelle. I think the quote is about the tendency of civilization to create more structure (new structure), and because bureaucracy benefits from structure, then bureaucracy grows as civilization does. But the real crux of the argument is that bureaucracies care more about self-preservation and expanding than they do about fulfilling their original purpose, i.e., bureaucracy is a parasite that grows as the structural output of its host grows.
Re: Noble ideas, but doomed to failure
I think you need to re-read the article. The Internet is successfully decentralized; it's the world-wide web that is not. Internet != web
So if the technological marvel that we call the Internet can be decentralized, why do you find it so impossible that a protocol running on top of it cannot also be decentralized?
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact
Making a law that impinges freedom of expression needs more justification than a speculative worst case scenario.
I understand the argument that showing proof of who you voted for can facilitate vote-buying, but I don't believe such an important freedom as free speech/expression should be limited based only on "what-if" arguments.
Re:
Found these cartoons by Ben Hammer: https://medium.com/govtrack-insider/cartoon-congress-scotus-rules-on-obamacare-b054461727be
Re: In Canada?
Maybe https://openparliament.ca/ is similar
More Accuracy
Since Comcast wants you to be less accurate in your descriptions, the obvious response should be a more accurate title for him: Chief Bribery Officer