Network stupidity Part II

If you build a computer into a car, do not complain if a 12-years-old child once finds out how to turn this thing into his slave. At the very first shut up if you do not manage to install a cheap anti-virus software at least.
A computer does not belong into a car; humans even survived driving a car at a time where no one was thinking about a computer.
They even survived riding a horse! Can you imagine how stupid a horse would look if you added the computer of a plane to it?
That would be like shooting with a RPG-rocket to get rid of some annoying birds.

Your hysteric desire for protection is a disgust in the eye of what you came from.
You want protection for situations where is none because the nature of the matter does contradict it.

A child also does not belong to a public network.
Giving him access to a computer and letting him surf the network is like leaving him alone in the greatest ghetto you know. Would you leave your kid alone running around between drug dealers, whores, robbers, pedophiles and a lot of weapons?
Surely not.

...But if it is tied to a machine, you do that without hesitation.

Your race does not even dare to think about what it is doing.
You do not even dare to think what is the nature of what you are doing and if it suits your constant needs for protection and guaranteed survival.
Although you have gotten rid of a few difficulties by settling down and living in easier circumstances, you forgot that the nature of life itself does not change by that.
Life is dangerous, life is a battle for survival, life is the possibility to die, so why don't you get that there is no absolute safety and if you want it you have to care for it by yourself?
You have forgotten a lot of things, how things work - and that is the reason why so much is running the wrong way. Why so many things walk the way of destruction.
And it doesn't seem as if you really want to remember...

Network stupidity

Last night, I got to know that there is a new trial about a youtube copyright issue about what are you allowed to do and what are you not, valid for the country I'm living in.
It is about whether you harm the rights of another if you post his videos embed in your own writings without asking him.
The high court still has not found it's final decision, maybe it will once again be handed over to Brussels.

I don't know what to say to this "mess" - I guess it is the same with many other countries, not only this one; valid copyright needs to be revised as well as what is often called "mental property".
It would be the same judging problems of today with the moral of the middle ages and the Inquisition - almost everything would be forbidden what humans used to do every day.

The thing about this which I do not understand - beside the fact the copyright does not get revised -, why do people publish something in a public environment and then complain about what is happening to their content?
If you connect everything and nothing to a public network, you are begging for somebody to take it.
If you don't want anybody to do what he desires with your creations, then you can't put it into a public environment - and you can't connect every machine to a public network.
Network means an entity can access what another entity at another position is doing - there is no more privacy.
If that risk is too much for you or you fear somebody to steal important data about your life, you can't join the network.
Otherwise you always have to live with that small risk to once meet a hacker in your line.
It is native of these things.