here is the situation as i see it: p2p [a] is the manner in which cyberia [the virtual nation] was born. [b] we then evolved out of that, as the quantity and speed of data-transfer exceeded the capabilities of individual computers. [c] now, as pc's speed and storage capacity are increasing by orders of magnitude every month, we are regaining the capability to exist on our own without even routers [which were originally installed on each machine]. so, as soon as we go beyond wires and radios to lasers and adopt unbreakable encryption [which already exists, using a shared random number algorithm], we will have the cyberian ideal of universal, instant [okay, okay: lags in the microsecond range; bfd 8>] data access. truth on demand will make us all free. then all we'll need is someone like bill gates [my hero] to arrange the distribution and [black?]marketing of these pc's. everyone's got a dream. that's mine.

kinda enthuiastic, right?

May I add that internet speed does not increase _every_ month, routers are need to keep internet alive (P2P is no real P2P on internet), unbreakable encryption does not exist in real life. The rest about Bill gates, which truth on demand will make us all free and about black marketing.. I didn't get that.

It's true that this is not a reality yet, but as things are now it is possible to use encryption methods that are NEARLY unbreakable. That is to say it would take a string of supercomputers several months to break it and it would NOT be worth the cost to do so unless the information encrypted was critical.

ok, moak, i'll grant you that i may have exaggerated a little on my rate of increase there, but an article i read in science daily a month or 2 ago said that uncrackable encryption was now a reality because, in the newly developed algorithm, only the 2 in the loop would have the same constantly variable set of random numbers. sounds good to me. about bill gates: someone has to make this improved technology available to the masses at an affordable price, and, considering the income level of most of the world, that would take someone who has proven their involvement in philanthropy [the melinda and bill gates foundation, for example]. write the rest off to the rantings of a 60's radical 8D. i've been waiting for this longer than most of you have been alive. separate routers are an historically recent development because, as i stated, routing hardware/software was originally in each computer. PS: you look a lot like bob ****** 8>

Aha, okay I let you dream
PS: True but I wish I could sing

I keep wondering about that. Will "truth on demand" make us all free? Does truth on demand even exist? For that matter - does truth as a single objective thing exist? And if so: what the heck is it?

I mean, let us look at the internet as it is right now: ask a question and you will get 20 different answers from 15 different people. How do you find out which of these opinions is the truth? I know how most people do it (and how I probably do it): they choose the answer which confirms what they already believe.

Look at the media: how can we confirm for ourselves that it is actually true what they show us? Is there really a war going on in Afghanistan? Is there actually a person who calls himself Osama bin Laden? Or is he just a cheap C-Rate actor who poses for either the Taliban or the US, just so they have someone to point to? Who can answer that without the shadow of a doubt? I know I can't.

And as technology advances and ever more people climb out of the primordial soup of "Ooo, where do I have to click to see porn?" and become technology savant it will become harder and harder to distinguish truth from lie (may it be intentional or not).

Another example: take "Waldo", the guy who apparently was taken a picture of on top of the WTC seconds before the first plane impacted. That picture went through the net like a greased beaver through an oil pit. It created its own mythology, its own meme, its own history. And it wasn't an especially impressive fake, either. It was just very good social engeneering. Still, a fake triumphed over the truth, and I am pretty sure that even now many people are not aware that it was in fact a fake. Many people still believe all the urban legends about Spiders in Banana chests or genetic manipulated chickens used by KFC. And these things have been out in the clear for YEARS now. "Waldo" will keep on amazing people for many years to come and no amount of "truth on demand" will set these people free.

To get this rant to an end I want to quote one of my favourite writers, Vernor Vinge, from his Book "A Fire upon the Deep" where he describes (beside the story in itself) a network spanning the universe not much unlike usenet:

"And so it went. Tens of thousands of messages, hundreds of points of views. It was not called the Net of a Million Lies for nothing."

PS: Why is this in "Support Center"? Shouldn't we move it to "Rant"?

there have always been suckers. there always will be. you're right, no amount of data will assist anyone who doesn't want to climb out, such as those looking only for posts confirming their pet theories. the folks i'm talking about are those whom i flatter the human race by thinking of as the majority who will rationally interpret available data to make the best choice possible. phrased another way, total ignorance and total idiocy are indistinguishabe. an oatmeal box and an IBM are equal, with no data 8D

But how to decide which data is viable and which is not? As technology advances fakes will become more and more sophisticated and lese and less easily to detect. Even today newspapers have no problem faking photos to show things they think to be true.

How else can we decide what is the truth? "What most people believe to be true is true?" We know that THAT does not work...

I know my view is pretty solipsistic - but since I live in a world where electronic media is becoming stronger by the second while at the same time I know how easily fakes are created (mind you, I'm no photoshop wizard, but even I can put up a decent fake that could boggle the common layman) I'm starting to doubt anything that I cannot see with my own eyes without intervention of electronic media.

Maybe I should stay with the old Illuminatus saying: "Nothing is true. Not even this sentence."

what happens every time the social fabric is too weak to handle the strain put on it? there are many ways of phrasing the answer, but the simplest is: revolution. reality will not support the claims charlatans purvey concerning it and the whole matrix is disintegrating. if the word 'revolution' is too political for you, try 'chaos' 8/ PS: see 'and by the way' in main support center.