let's just put it this way : we're destroying the internet just like we're destroying the earth... a teacher of mine once said that the IQ of a group equals the IQ of the dumbest one divided by the number of people in the group... --> mankind's IQ isn't very high...

information pollution, that's what it is. the worst thing about spam is that enough people are stupid enough to respond, making it worthwhile for the spammers..

Delete! Delete!

The spam situation is ridiculous, as is the "having to pay for everything these days" thing. Unless the Internet becomes some kind of state-run thing i don't think either of these things will go away. But that'd destroy one of the main ideals of the Internet - freedom.

Party!

i think the whole email protocol needs rewriting really (the idea mildlymad posted in Joker isn't so far fetched) to make spammers accountable for their actions. as for websites charging, i guess it was always in the minds of the newspapers etc to do this. which is a shame.

the one good thing is that the internet is still a very cheap and easy way to reach the world, and for every corporate site that charges for access there will always be a hundred more free-access efforts.

boinng will never charge, put it that way..

Delete! Delete!

can't be helped though, problem with freedom is people will use it for anything. as for the information crisis thats looming the only way to stop it is to regulate. but then i think the nets already too out of control to be resricted like that without a complete over haul (and probably new protocals) only thing is censorship. there is very little. information can and will escape onto the net, but like the old saying, the best place to hide a book is in a libary. the net is so vast that the truth what ever it is, is pushed aside and ignored by all but a few. so i think censorship will bring the opposite effect ppl wanting to find interesting/harmful/dangerous information on the net. anyways enough ranting

Cheese I choose you!

Censorship is relative though. If you are going to restrict one thing, why not another? That way leads a total state controlled dissemination of information, leading to 'clones' quoting the party line.

Put it this way - when I was doing my GCSE's 13 years ago, I was taught the exact workings of nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs. Not just vaguely, but full on schematics. Now, I don't know if they give that info to 15 year olds anymore, but how is that any different to getting that info off the internet - it's just a source of information after all !

Freedom for all !
Now where did I put that Uranium?

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

they only teach you that stuff if you ask nicely. or have a very cool teacher who thought it'd be cool to have to depleated uranium (U234 i belive) in the class room just to prove how radioactive it is... as well as a sample of heavy water.. thing is this day and age you don't really want to bother getting uranium or plutonium any radioactive source will do, even americanium (found in all smoke detectors) can be used to make a nuke (abit smaller payload, about a third as powerfull as the same ammount of uranium) the only real challenege in making a nuke is the instant and simultanous explosion of the casing around your radioactive source, other wise the reaction is uneven and the power isn't released at once or even worse chain reaction doesn't happen then all you get is a big 'dirty' bomb. an expensive one at that.

Cheese I choose you!