PDA

View Full Version : "2012: The Year The Internet Ends"



SmartAlec
2008-06-03, 04:10 PM
I guess this belongs here, seeing as the Internet is fundamentally a source of media of all kinds.

Still, here's a link to the website of a group of net-neutrality activists on the subject of the imminent commercialisation of the Internet. See what you think.

http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality

Closet_Skeleton
2008-06-03, 04:13 PM
They'll just make a pirate Internet and nobody will care about the official one anyway. Except that it will take another decade before the pirate internet becomes anything but a porn repository and by that time we'll have world peace and nobody will care about the internet anymore because something more interesting will have come along.

:smallcool: The world is great.

chiasaur11
2008-06-03, 04:18 PM
They'll just make a pirate Internet and nobody will care about the official one anyway. Except that it will take another decade before the pirate internet becomes anything but a porn repository and by that time we'll have world peace and nobody will care about the internet anymore because something more interesting will have come along.

:smallcool: The world is great.

World peace'll just increase the desire for filthy, filthy internet porn.
Gotta have something to do.

Dragor
2008-06-03, 04:24 PM
This worries me. A lot.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-03, 04:26 PM
the world is ending in 2012 anyway, so what ever :P

bluish_wolf
2008-06-03, 04:35 PM
This just screams hoax to me. Especially the part about all major media outlets conspiring against the general public.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-03, 04:36 PM
It's another millennarian end of the world gloat. Make of it what you will.

Inhuman Bot
2008-06-03, 04:44 PM
Hmm the video isn't there. Know wherelse it might be?

puppyavenger
2008-06-03, 05:09 PM
1. You can't patent the internet, if you could, it would be already done and someone would be a billionaire off royalties.
2. considering tthat a quick google reveals several "hacking for beginers"guides,, a free browser would be upp within 24 hours.
3. You'd have to get every industry with a connection to the internet to buy in, yah, good luch with that.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-06-03, 05:09 PM
This just screams hoax to me. Especially the part about all major media outlets conspiring against the general public.That just screams "business as usual" to me. Although this might be taking the paranoia beyond realistic levels.

Tom_Violence
2008-06-03, 05:13 PM
Yet another '2012 = the death of everything' yawn. Anyway, its all gibberish, and quite clearly just a bunch of nobodies looking for a bit of attention. Every significant internet provider wants the internet to be a TV-like, subscription-based service? I don't think so. Give me a break. Etc. Sounds like absolutely nothing more than random scare-mongering with that "Down with Capitalism!" bent that one expects from a video of a group of people and beards sitting around in someone's garden discussing 'society'. :smalltongue:

Plus, it literally makes no logical sense. Not only is it doubtless technologically impossible, but any sensible internet provider (and there are millions of internet providers in the world today - good luck getting all of them to conspire against the common man) would just have to not play along and they'd get the entire world's custom. Hmm...

Anyway, I dare say someone soon will turn round and say "ha ha, April Fool's!" or somesuch. So take your pick - bad scaremongering, or bad joke?

Shadowcaller
2008-06-03, 05:14 PM
And besides what use would google be if you can't use other internet sides?

BRC
2008-06-03, 05:18 PM
They are forgetting somthing, Corporations are Greedy. All it would take is one ISP backing out of this agreement and it would all fall apart. And think about it, one ISP refuses and continues to offer the whole internet while the others only offer a few websites? That's big money right there. It's the same reason all corporations don't get together and say "Hey, Let's price hike internet subscription rates to a minumum of $200/month". Besides the fact that I think that's against the law, all it would take is one corp saying "Hey, If we set OUR prices at $150/month, we get a gajillion customers" And it all falls apart.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-03, 05:21 PM
1. You can't patent the internet, if you could, it would be already done and someone would be a billionaire off royalties.
2. considering tthat a quick google reveals several "hacking for beginers"guides,, a free browser would be upp within 24 hours.
3. You'd have to get every industry with a connection to the internet to buy in, yah, good luch with that.

lol hax, CS III, etc.

Also, remember that the less evidence there is for a given conspiracy theory, the more likely it is that it is true, because the government is covering it up.

This board needs a 'nods sagely' emoticon.

GoC
2008-06-03, 05:24 PM
I keep timing out when trying to access that site...:smalleek:

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-03, 05:25 PM
I keep timing out when trying to access that sight...:smalleek:

It's because of the conspiracy.

DraPrime
2008-06-03, 05:43 PM
I've been hearing stuff like this for a long time. Predictions like this aren't new, and I doubt that they'll ever come true.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-03, 05:44 PM
That's what they want you to think.

Rutee
2008-06-03, 05:46 PM
Guys, let's not treat Net Neutrality so flippantly. Their paranoia is too far, but the concern, not so much. Wiki it. It's a serious problem..

LBO
2008-06-03, 05:50 PM
Trusted Computing is what scares the hell out of me. This? Not so much.

puppyavenger
2008-06-03, 05:51 PM
Guys, let's not treat Net Neutrality so flippantly. Their paranoia is too far, but the concern, not so much. Wiki it. It's a serious problem..
Wiki what?
"secret corporate conspiricy to comercialise the internet and force us to pay for different pacages of website"?

Echowinds
2008-06-03, 05:55 PM
I think the idea is to wiki "net neutrality".

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-03, 05:57 PM
Guys, let's not treat Net Neutrality so flippantly. Their paranoia is too far, but the concern, not so much. Wiki it. It's a serious problem..

Quiet, citizen.

DomaDoma
2008-06-03, 06:03 PM
Speaking as someone who's been seriously off-put by 2012: it's not the end of the world.

(Been waiting to use that one.)

In essence, what everyone else said.

Moff Chumley
2008-06-03, 06:08 PM
Feh, everyone knows the government isn't competent enough to pull off a decent conspiracy...

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-03, 06:10 PM
That's a front.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-03, 06:10 PM
Trusted Computing is what scares the hell out of me. This? Not so much.
Yeah, thats the one I'm really scared of as well.

Whoracle
2008-06-03, 06:16 PM
They are forgetting somthing, Corporations are Greedy. All it would take is one ISP backing out of this agreement and it would all fall apart. And think about it, one ISP refuses and continues to offer the whole internet while the others only offer a few websites? That's big money right there. It's the same reason all corporations don't get together and say "Hey, Let's price hike internet subscription rates to a minumum of $200/month". Besides the fact that I think that's against the law, all it would take is one corp saying "Hey, If we set OUR prices at $150/month, we get a gajillion customers" And it all falls apart.

Apart from me not believing it would happen, but:

How would said ISP offer the whole internet? No single ISP has the hardware and dark fibre to route all and everyone to the net. And to aquire said hardware would cost a LOT.
So, paranoid as it sounds, but it MIGHT happen. Or at least one or a couple of ISPs aren't enough to stop it, IF it happens. A new net would need a new infrastructure...

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 06:16 PM
Linky to Trusted computing, please?

Hmm...if we end with a televisionlike internet, will we end like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYSW73GWRUw&feature=related) a century later?

DomaDoma
2008-06-03, 06:28 PM
Apart from me not believing it would happen, but:

How would said ISP offer the whole internet? No single ISP has the hardware and dark fibre to route all and everyone to the net. And to aquire said hardware would cost a LOT.
So, paranoid as it sounds, but it MIGHT happen. Or at least one or a couple of ISPs aren't enough to stop it, IF it happens. A new net would need a new infrastructure...

Sure, but who's going to be the first to implement this policy? Mass exodus ahoy.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-03, 06:38 PM
Linky to Trusted computing, please?
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing), Wikipedia is your friend.

GoC
2008-06-03, 06:43 PM
Trusted Computing is what scares the hell out of me. This? Not so much.

Agreed.:smalleek:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 06:44 PM
....Oh, ****. TC needs to be brought down, FAST. If possible, with BFGs, Bazookas, and Pauly Shore movies. I'm NOT going to keep anything that has TC hardware, good as it might be.

Tirian
2008-06-03, 07:15 PM
I think that Trusted Computing and Net Neutrality are both critical ideas. Not much sense in fighting over which one is worse.

And folks who are saying that we only need one hippie ISP that doesn't play along aren't getting it. When you get a page from giantitp.com, there is a request and a response that travel through thousands of miles of cable, and in all likelihood your ISP doesn't own over 99% of them. Now, if the five or six companies that do own almost all of those cables decide that they want to delay your request because they want throughput to be optimal for their preferred customers over at disney.com, then you're in a spot. Or if they just come down and decide that you need to pay them an extra $5 a month for unlimited access to their tubes in addition to what you already pay your ISP for hosting your website and gathering your email.

Would it come to that? I don't know. But I can say that I never expected using another bank's ATM to cause BOTH banks to impose an abusive finance charge on me, because the old interbank networks like Cirrus and Plus were so obviously good things. So, no, I can't say that it would be a huge surprise if the cable companies weren't drooling at the thought of laying a fee structure on top of something that is highly convenient and currently free.

Mr. Scaly
2008-06-03, 10:26 PM
I haven't trusted those 'end of the world' prophecies since I read it was supposed to end December 10th 1998 and it didn't. This is pretty much the same thing.

Manga Shoggoth
2008-06-04, 03:03 AM
Some of you may find this interesting: A monkey hanger's guide to Net Neutrality (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/21/net_neutrality_a_monkey_hangers_guide/)

Black_Pants_Guy
2008-06-04, 03:36 AM
"Down with Capitalism!"

I like the sound of a communist Internet...:biggrin:

Jimor
2008-06-04, 03:52 AM
Actually, most of the Canadian DSL users have already been subjected to "traffic shaping" that automatically constricts peer-to-peer file sharing bandwidth. (Cable internet providers in Canada and the U.S. also routinely cut back people who overuse "unlimited" accounts).

Even ISPs in Canada that don't want to do this are stuck because they're renting the wires from Bell Canada which told them "tough, we're doing it anyway".

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080325-canadian-isps-furious-about-bell-canadas-traffic-throttling.html

It's not quite as bad as the doomsayers are shouting about, but it is something that a lot of the backbone providers would really really like to see happen if they can get away with it.

Pie Guy
2008-06-04, 06:34 AM
It's nothing. 30 years ago, everyone thought the world would end on the year 2000. Can anyone tell me how this happened? Or am I the only one alive ad your'e all figments?

Trizap
2008-06-04, 09:27 AM
world won't end in 2012, I mean honestly,who actually believes an apocalypse will happen in four years?

GoC
2008-06-04, 09:36 AM
Some of you may find this interesting: A monkey hanger's guide to Net Neutrality (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/21/net_neutrality_a_monkey_hangers_guide/)

I fail to understand how any of these are problems.:smallconfused:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2007/03/21/slide21_small_b.jpg

Dallas-Dakota
2008-06-04, 09:40 AM
If this happens and gitp dies, I will seriously commit kamikaze on whoever is responsible.

Drascin
2008-06-04, 10:17 AM
Trusted Computing is what scares the hell out of me. This? Not so much.

Didn't know what that was, Wiki'd it before continuing to read the thread...

...Holy. HELL :smalleek:. Am I even understanding this right?! Files that won't play except in particular conditions set by the retailer, parts of the computer completely shut off from the user, forced utter impracticality in systems (and wait until Microsoft makes it so no wordprocessor other than Word works in Windows), and so on?

I would ask whether they can do such a thing, and just how they intend to shove it down our throats without people screaming for customers' rights, but given the crap legal system we seem to have, I think that'd be a rethorical question :smallmad:. Instead, I will settle for asking, is there anything normal people can do to help prevent this?

Dervag
2008-06-04, 10:33 AM
This just screams hoax to me. Especially the part about all major media outlets conspiring against the general public.The thing to remember is that while the major media outlets won't hesitate to cheat us or to screw us over for money, they will hesitate to do anything that threatens their ability to sell their products.

Internet service providers know that a lot of their customers won't bother to sign up if all they can visit are the websites of Disney, Microsoft, et cetera, et cetera.


That's what they want you to think.Of course, sometimes what they want you to think is true, just as sometimes the paranoiacs really do have someone out to get them.


Didn't know what that was, Wiki'd it before continuing to read the thread...

...Holy. HELL :smalleek:. Am I even understanding this right?! Files that won't play except in particular conditions set by the retailer, parts of the computer completely shut off from the user, forced utter impracticality in systems (and wait until Microsoft makes it so no wordprocessor other than Word works in Windows), and so on?

I would ask whether they can do such a thing, and just how they intend to shove it down our throats without people screaming for customers' rights, but given the crap legal system we seem to have, I think that'd be a rethorical question :smallmad:. Instead, I will settle for asking, is there anything normal people can do to help prevent this?A lot of the really nasty potential applications of TC are sue-able, because they violate legal concepts of 'ownership'. When you pay someone for a product or service, there are limits on what kind of conditions the vendor can place on your use of the product or service. Especially conditions that you aren't informed of until after you've purchased the product.

So I'm not sure that the major media and IT corporations behind the push for Trusted Computing will be able to keep the legal infrastructure in place to make the system work the way they want it to. In the face of widespread popular annoyance and the questionable legality of selling people a product and then making that product useless if they don't buy related products or if they don't use the product as you intended, their system may collapse.

GoC
2008-06-04, 11:15 AM
A lot of the really nasty potential applications of TC are sue-able, because they violate legal concepts of 'ownership'. When you pay someone for a product or service, there are limits on what kind of conditions the vendor can place on your use of the product or service. Especially conditions that you aren't informed of until after you've purchased the product.
That's why they'll "lease" hardware like Micro$oft does with software.

Tyrant
2008-06-04, 06:38 PM
world won't end in 2012, I mean honestly,who actually believes an apocalypse will happen in four years?

The Mayans?

Innis Cabal
2008-06-04, 06:44 PM
And where are they? Where are their empires?

Mr. Scaly
2008-06-04, 07:23 PM
Well, that's humanity for you. Everyone thinks that the world will end in their lifetime.

Trizap
2008-06-04, 07:26 PM
The Mayans?

aside from ignorant ancient civilizations.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-04, 07:28 PM
Well of course, its human nature to think they are the most important things in the world

Tyrant
2008-06-04, 07:29 PM
And where are they? Where are their empires?

I didn't say they were prosperous. I did say that they did believe that. That answered the question at hand without including the modern people who also believe it (who have questionable sanity or intelligence in a lot of cases I have come across). So, aside from illustrating that the Mayans are long gone, what are you getting at? Personally, I don't put any stock into it for a variety of reasons (some of which I believe we aren't supposed to discuss). However, my lack of belief in it has nothing to do with the fact that the Mayans are dust in the wind.*Edit* I guess I should have said the Mayan Empire is gone as apparently the Mayan people are still around and still have some level of distinctive culture and language. So I guess to answer your question, they are in Mexico and a few surrounding areas. *Edit*


aside from ignorant ancient civilizations.

I know it's wikipedia, but this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization) severely disagrees with your take on Mayan civilization.

The Extinguisher
2008-06-04, 10:57 PM
The problem is, no one is going to take it. The majority of people will just stop using the companies that do this. They go bottom up, see how stupid they were, and problem solved.

Dervag
2008-06-04, 11:14 PM
aside from ignorant ancient civilizations.The Jehovah's Witnesses predicted the end of the world seven times in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A wide variety of people believing in many kinds of spiritual and mystical forces expected events of enormous consequence in the year 2000, predicting something that would come pretty darn close to the end of the world.

"It is not the beginning, but the continuing of the same unto the end"

Renegade Paladin
2008-06-04, 11:18 PM
Oh look, conspiracy theory whackjobs. :smalltongue:

Clue: The Internet has no neutrality policies now, as we speak. If the much-dreaded multinationals were going to do this, they'd have already done it.

Edit: Oh, and the conspiracy theory whackjobs are none other than the ones who pulled that dumb 90 day suicide countdown prank a few months back. I thought I recognized her. I take this to mean she's still alive. :smalltongue:

Whoracle
2008-06-05, 08:33 AM
[...]Instead, I will settle for asking, is there anything normal people can do to help prevent this?[...]

Simple, but uncomfortable: Don't buy TCPA-enabled hard- and software.
Sounds easy enough, but this means no Computer upgrades after it has spread widely enough. Afterwards, you'd got to care for your hardware, switch to alternative OS's (Linux or BSD comes to mind) and stop playing new games/using new software.
It's as easy as that. The Corps would likely survive for up to 6 months and then falter under customer pressure, since revenue'd fail to gather.

The problem here is: How to get all the uninformed masses to do the same, as it would be inefficient if only a handful of customers boycotted TCPA.

WalkingTarget
2008-06-05, 08:34 AM
The Mayans?

Ah, one of my favorite conjectures. It's not even like their calendar stops there, it's more like a Y2K problem.

Using the long-count calendar, today (June 5 2008) is 12.19.15.7.0

December 21, 2012 is just 13.0.0.0.0 which would probably have marked big celebrations, much like Dec. 31 1999/Jan. 1 2000 was in our calendar.

The "end of the world" thing was popularized by a New Age guy named Jose Arguelles or something in a book he published in the '80s. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any evidence that the Mayans themselves believed any such thing. I mean, the same guy thought there was a "Harmonic Convergence" on August 17, 1987 that had deep spiritual meaning.

I think that the Shadowrun RPG had a neat take on it, though. :smallbiggrin:

Tirian
2008-06-05, 11:51 AM
Sounds easy enough, but this means no Computer upgrades after it has spread widely enough. Afterwards, you'd got to care for your hardware, switch to alternative OS's (Linux or BSD comes to mind) and stop playing new games/using new software.

According to Wiki, the Linux kernel has supported TC since version 2.6.13, nearly three years ago. There are applications for it other than the Orwellization of digital rights. There are lots of good-faith instances where the people who operate a computer aren't the "owner", and where that owner wants assurance that the data is uncorrupted. The problems only arise in the narrower applications like Palladium where Microsoft and Sony and Bioware would assert that they are the owners of all of their users' computers.

Destro_Yersul
2008-06-06, 08:46 AM
I think that the Shadowrun RPG had a neat take on it, though. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, that was the date of the Matrix crash, wasn't it? Fun times for all!

As for the Trusted Computing, all I can say is that it might just give Console Gaming a new lease on life. From what I hear, the age of the console is coming to an end.

WalkingTarget
2008-06-06, 09:59 AM
Yeah, that was the date of the Matrix crash, wasn't it? Fun times for all!

Actually, now that I look it up to refresh my memory, it looks like I was wrong. I had thought that the Awakening began then, but it seems to have started sometime in 2011 if not earlier. Oh well, so much for that theory, it would have been a neat convergence in my opinion (the great crash was in 2029 BTW).

Bleen
2008-06-06, 10:27 AM
Hmm. Two sides who disagree on an issue, one against clamining the end of the world and one for claiming that the other has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

Yep, politics as usual. Carry on...

Uncle Festy
2008-06-06, 11:13 AM
Feh, everyone knows the government isn't competent enough to pull off a decent conspiracy...

Can I steal this for my sig plz?

Tirian
2008-06-06, 02:35 PM
As for the Trusted Computing, all I can say is that it might just give Console Gaming a new lease on life. From what I hear, the age of the console is coming to an end.

Huh, to me it's Windows-based gaming that is at an end. One of Microsoft's best ideas ever was DirectX; game designers would program to a certain version of the API and video card makers would sell hardware that would deliver different versions (and MS would do their part as well to make sure that all of their OSes supported the highest versions possible). As a user, you could tell at a glance if your machine could run a game. But DX9c is almost four years old and DX10 is a Vista-only marketing ploy that breaks the covenant because it doesn't mean that you can run any DX9 game. So it can be very hard to tell if my machine can run a specific game out of the box, or if it can be run with extensive modding, or if it can't be run at all. Long story short, I haven't bought a PC game in over two years and won't be starting anytime soon.

On the other hand, my PS2 has perfectly clear game requirements and pretty effortlessly delivers DVD-quality graphics and sound. Better yet, there is a very mature market for excellent "old" games at reasonable prices, either through the "Greatest Hits" line or several stores that sell used games. My brother has a Wii and he downloads old N64 games to play. Neither of us has a burning desire for the HD gaming experience, but it's there too. I think that this is the golden age of consoles as the way to experience computer games.

But mostly, I don't understand why someone would think that you can escape TC by retreating into consoles. Piracy control, regional lockout, proprietary memory card formats; this is already Palladium's wish list. The dream of evil TC enthusiasts is to turn my desktop computer into something that is as constrained as a gaming console.

Destro_Yersul
2008-06-06, 06:46 PM
Mostly it's that producing the consoles and games for them is so overbearingly expensive that it's next to impossible to make a profit on them anymore.

At any rate, that's precisely the point. Consoles were never designed to be used on as wide a scope as computers, so TC won't do anything to them. What would be the point?