I also considered that possibility, but since I don't know the real reason why, and you don't either, I figured I'd go with the more sensational response, especially since the comment to which I responded was also not "very contributive", yet did not get downvoted.
OMG! OMG! I'm being downvoted by both females and their pussyboys, you know, the males who will valiantly protect any female, in any situation, against any male, just because of that slit between their legs, even if the protectors have no chance of getting some. Those two groups easily cover more than 99.9% of the human population.
It's somewhat ironic that I'm being downvoted on a simple response to a comment on an article about GooglePlus, the same service which was reported, on the same day, to have banned certain people for saying certain things. I better stop, before I get banned from here, or rendered invisible, because I don't want to have to join the ranks of Anonymous ... just yet.
Well, that's all very nice and good and whatnot, except that as soon as such a network comes into existence, one where "anything" is allowed, someone, possibly even the police themselves, will upload child porn, and then the whole thing goes away, along with anyone at the top of its operation. That's the big problem.
You must allow everything, and protection from being shut down by the government must be built in from the start, and you must design in the ability for people to apply complex filtering so as to get as close as possible to the holy grail of "only what I want, when I want it", and the whole thing must be super simple to use, with a very comfortable feel, unlike torrents and traditional p2p, and some level of anonymity must be allowed, as well as the ability to confirm the identities of people who want to be identified.
And that's just for starters. Anyway, I have Anonymous beat by 6 months on this, or at least as far as domain registrations go. Let's see which of us is first to create something of real and lasting value. Finally, my one-man startup not only has competition, but it comes from none other than the most brilliant group of malcontents ever assembled in human history. Woot!
Perfect! It just so happens that I am available for the newly-formed C3PO position at your company. My comment was actually BOTH a means of creating a position specifically tailored for myself, AND my application for said position. If you hire me, your proofs shall always be read, your pudding shall always be warm, and your panties shall always be clean and pressed.
I remember an interview, from long ago, with Peter Sellers, who played Chief Inspector Clouseau in "The Pink Panther" film series. He said something to the effect (<--!!!) that he didn't wait around for jobs in Hollywood to become available. Instead, he created situations out of which roles tailor-made for him would come into existence. In other words, he did what it took to make jobs for which he was the best choice. From that, I now have the philosophy of "One Job, One Applicant".
Before the CTO, you might want to get a CPO (Chief Proofreading Officer).
"Let’s face it, only a fraction of your day is spent on the tasks and projects that directly effect your bottom line."
- http://zirtual.com/how-it-works
It should be "affect". Personally, I'm looking for a C3PO (Chief Proofreading, Pudding and Panties Officer) because I like for my people to multitask.
"The only thing the US government has ever given up is control over the registry and DNS management. Under a MoU[1] that facility was handed over to ICANN ..."
That's just a bureaucratic illusion. As we can see from recent domain seizures, the feds can take over any of these domains, unilaterally, and without any notice or due process.
If Google has actually spent that much on renewables, then why didn't they give Bussard the measly $5M (or maybe it was $20M) for which he practically begged them, back on 11/09/06? He needed $200M, over 5 years, to build his fusion reactor, but only a small fraction of that to confirm some important experimental results which he had achieved just before the Navy cut his funding. He believed that he could get that confirmation, and that it would be enough to show that proceeding with the $200M investment would be prudent. I was quite sad to see that he died about 11 months later, having not achieved his dream, and having been reduced to begging at the end of his life. Google not only should have given him the $5M/$20M, but they should have been thrilled and honored to have such an intellect even speaking to them. Fuck Google's shortsightedness.
"... the government isn't going to try to censor."
Um, what? Our own government censors. They unilaterally take away domain names, without due process or even notice, and they create laws which make certain communication, if done in public, illegal, which leads to these crazy Terms of Service that just about every social website has today.
So, GhanStan is full of poppy fields, but the government won't attempt to censor me should I try to cause any kind of trouble with those through online postings? GhanStan is so stable that the hospital should not ever have to worry about its FabFi connection being physically taken down?
If only I had some trash with which to create an Internet. I guess there is a downside to clean living.
What they did is okay, except: "The public hospital, which houses the endpoint of FabFi Afghanistan's longest link, has become a shared community resource, providing downlinks to a growing number of locations in the city center." It's not a good idea to give a major facility a large role in the network, because such a facility represents a big target for the government. It's a good start, but in the long term, any serious attempt at resisting censorship must use the utmost in guerrilla tactics.
This may be a hoax. There are only two occurrences of his name on PACER, and both are discharged bankruptcy cases. Also, the federal inmate locator (http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp) shows no one by that name.
"Language as an Intellectual Tool: From Hieroglyphics to APL" by Donald B. McIntyre in IBM Systems Journal Vol.30, No.4 1991, p.554-581. http://www.electricscotland.com/mcintyre/index_f/menu_f/j_f/...
"Notation as a Tool of Thought" by Kenneth E. Iverson in his 1979 ACM Turing Award Lecture. http://elliscave.com/APL_J/tool.pdf