ICANN’s formation is important because it provides a layer of insulation between the government and the Internet. It allowed the Internet to grow rather than “be grown” by the government. Also, as a corporation ICANN must support it self and retain some measure of efficiency, a property not often associated with governmental agencies. This insulation has also protected it from many of the ills associated with lobbying. Intense lobbying by industry groups such as the RIAA and MPAA have resulted in laws like the DMCA and DRM measures. Even an architect of the DMCA admits that it has not been effective (Citation), yet Congress has changed nothing and allows the RIAA and MPAA to subpoena people’s personal information from their ISP. This has recently been overturned in the courts, however, (Citation) and it remains to see what impact this decision has on the RIAA’s attempts to sue peer-to-peer file sharing program users. Meager attempts by Congress such as the FAIR USE bill have been fiercely opposed by the RIAA.

One Senator’s ignorance of Internet issues has destroyed his support among the technology community. Ted Stevens infamous “The Internet is a series of tubes!” speech has produced many laughs at his expense, including techno remixes of the speech and t-shirts with the best quotes. (Shirts)

While Mr. Stevens may be the face of a technologically uneducated Congress, the repercussions of ignorance reach beyond funny videos and t-shirts. E-commerce is a multi-billion dollar business and it all rides on the laws and regulations set forth by the government. The music industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep changes in law from happening, unless it benefits them of course. The RIAA is in fact lobbying to increase the damages per song from peer-to-peer file sharing from the current maximum of $150,000. This has not garnered them many supporters, in fact hate websites like this have sprung up that show the RIAA in an evil communist or Nazi manner.

The government and industries like music need to wake up and see that trying to lock down and criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing of any kind is wasted effort. It also gives the impression to many uneducated citizens that peer-to-peer file sharing is inherently illegal. This is simply not true. Never before has information been exchanged on such a massive scale, and these technologies could have a tremendous impact on distributing educational materials, but instead receive almost exclusively negative press. Just because something can be used for illegal purposes does not make it illegal, guns can be used for murder yet are legal and the oceans transport thousands of tonnes of drugs every year, but we will never stop ships from plying the waters.

The federal government needs to establish simple, loophole free guidelines for Internet crimes prosecutions. Loopholes are particularly easy to take advantage of in cyberspace. Where business “occurs” is sometimes a matter of where the server’s are located. They can still provide services to the entire world while dodging the laws of many countries. The Pirate Bay is a prime example, the operators even provide humorous responses (under “Legal Threats” at the bottom) to take down notices they receive from lawyers. Since they are not located in the United States these letters have little bearing on them. Issues such as this must be cleared up before more elaborate legislation can be crafted. A strong house cannot be built on a weak foundation and the current legal foundation on the Internet is shaky at best. Although with the current administration eroding basic civil liberties I’m afraid that Internet rights and laws are not people’s primary concern. They need to realize that the Internet is simply an alternate reality. A loss of rights online can quickly mutate into the physical world. Congress must educate itself about the wonders of cyberspace and the opportunities it holds, or else make way for those who do.

1. Eating utensil
2. Catapult
3. Strainer
4. Weapon (if necessary)
5. Blacksmithing stock (if steel)
6. A split in a road
7. Magnet (if steel)
8. Backscratcher
9. Big knot untyer (probably not a word)
10. Parallel line guide

This is the anvil and hammer ready to go. The pointy thing sticking up is a “Hardy” it is used to cut steel and can be removed from its slot. There are other tools that use the same slot.

This is our stock.

Heating the steel.

Hot steel, ready for action.

This is the finished roll, ready to be quenched.

Cutting off the extra steel.

Grinding off sharp edges. Note: not as cool looking in person, unfortunately.

Bending the outer tines: heating with a torch and preparing to bend with the vise-grips.

Notching out the pieces so the tines line up better.

After welding them together here is the final piece:

It would be interesting to create a clear fork out of a material with the same density as water. It seems, then, that placing it in water should make it disappear. Since it’s the same density as water, it would slow down the light the same amount and with the water filling in around it, there should be no outline with which to see it.

An interesting idea.

1.Where do you go when you seek reliable information?

2. Where do you actually get your news from?

3. Do you crosscheck info from these news sources, particularly if it sounds questionable?

4. Do your news sources give you a world perspective or do you feel they are limited to one particular region?

5. Is there a market for alternate news sources?

6. What medium would best suit this alternate news source?

Person 1:

1. BBC. com, CNN.com

2. Yahoo News

3. Crosschecks using Google, only if its questionable.

4. No, if you’re looking for a world perspective the BBC, both tv and online, is the best.

5. There is too much news. In fact, shutting down some news companies would be the best strategy.

6. NA

Person 2:

1. MSN.com, MSNBC.com

2. Same as above.

3. Sometimes crosschecks information, usually only when interested in learning more or seems questionable.

4. MSN and MSNBC give a highly US centric view of world news.

5. Absolutely.

6. An internet site that evenly covers news the world over.

Person 3:

1. WSJ (print and online), CNN

2. Digg, Google News

3. Only crosschecks if something sounds fishy.

4. The WSJ does a good job of covering worldwide financial events, but not necessarily general news.

5. Yes.

6. A newspaper/website that covers like the WSJ, but on all issues, not just finance.

Person 4:

1. CNN.com, MSN, Channel 7 news for local events

2. Same as above.

3. No

4. CNN is better than the others, but still very US centric

5. No.

6. NA

Person 5:

1. Reuters, Google News

2. Same as above.

3. If it was important to me, I would, but otherwise no.

4. Some companies do better, Reuters is pretty good about covering world events.

5. “There’s always a market for something good.” Of course there’s a market.

6. Probably a website, it’s easily accessible, doesn’t have printing or other physical distribution costs and is quickly updated.

Perhaps this is something to keep in mind? Large artificially organized superpowers naturally decay into smaller independent communities? It would fit the law of entropy after all . . .

I’ve read several books lately which challenge the notion of popular conspiracy theories. John Perkins wrote a book called “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” in which he discusses large corporations and how they bilk developing countries out of billions of dollars. He does not call it a conspiracy, he terms it corporatocracy. Mr. Perkins feels that American’s let this abuse go on, not out of a lack of awareness, but because it is easy to let it continue. While some particulars of his book are questionable, this concept makes sense to me. “Titan” the biography of John D. Rockefeller supports this theory in past decades as well. Ida Tarbell wrote scathing articles about Rockefeller and public opinion turned against him, yet Standard Oil continued to grow and profit. Why? oil was easier and more convenient than other forms of energy, changing simply wasn’t worth it to the consumer. It still isn’t worth it, big oil isn’t a conspiracy, its convenience.

In a way, I’m glad that public opinion hasn’t had to spur too many changes in the recent years. When we fight about the DMCA and green-house gases it’s because we have sorted out more pressing problems, like shelter and food. So there you have it, even though I can’t stand conspiracies like September 11 and moon hoax, I’m happy to talk about them because it means that I do not “have something better to do.”

“The claim for cyberspace was not just that government would not regulate cyberspace – it was that government could not regulate cyberspace. Cyberspace was, by nature, unavoidably free.”

This view is extremely idealistic. The purpose of the internet as a DARPA project was to provide a data network which could reroute itself in the event of an attack from the Soviet Union. (Citation) This early aspiration probably has something to do with the misguide notion of an uncontrollable internet.

The internet resides on server’s in the physical world. It is also run by people. The US government has shown itself to be fairly competent in regulating the physical world and people over the last 231 years. If control is exercised over the driver, control is exercised over the vehicle.

Control, properly used, should not be viewed as a bad thing. While many people may feel that they do not want giant corporations or the government controlling their use of the internet, they have already embraced it. Before the advent of social-networking websites such as MySpace and Facebook few people had personal web pages, and even fewer actively updated them and cross-linked with their friends. Now nearly every college student has a Facebook profile complete with a personal profile, photo albums, links to their friends and live updates on their friends activities. Control is efficient, it is easy and people embrace it.

Industries without control move in opposition to the natural law of entropy. John D. Rockefeller took control of the oil industry in the late 1800′s with Standard Oil. He said that the industry was in such disarray early on that a monopoly was the only way to increase efficiency and calm things down. AT&T took control of the telecommunications industry. Microsoft took control of the computer software industry during its infancy. Should we let someone else take control or set our own terms now?