Feedback and Notes


Imagine No Religion

Latest Activity

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.



An internet group about The Internet.

The internet is both a telecommunication medium and a culture. We have embraced it because of its immediacy, its pervasiveness and its usefulness.

Even though for most of us its workings is equivalent to magic and it's enough to know that it's very 'complicated and technical,' it has become an intricate part of our life.

Let's talk about this.

Location: #science
Members: 16
Latest Activity: Nov 26

The Internet

This is a partial portrait of the Internet. Imagine that at the tip of each branch there is one or multiple human brains operating and that each one of these terminals can be instantly connected to any other, anywhere.

If we could map this image to the surface of the Earth it would make it even more obvious that this network of networks is like a new organ that has been grafted onto the biosphere.

Partial map of the Internet based on the January 15, 2005 data found on Each line is drawn between two nodes, representing two IP addresses. The length of the lines are indicative of the delay between those two nodes. This graph represents less than 30% of the Class C networks reachable by the data collection program in early 2005. Lines are color-coded according to their corresponding RFC 1918 allocation as follows:

Dark blue: net, ca, us
Green: com, org
Red: mil, gov, edu
Yellow: jp, cn, tw, au, de
Magenta: uk, it, pl, fr
Gold: br, kr, nl
White: unknown

Click here for a high-resolution 8MB image.

Discussion Forum

The NSA may have won a round but are losing the war!

Started by Davy. Last reply by Chris Oct 13, 2013. 1 Reply

THE CORE INTERNET INSTITUTIONS ABANDON THE US GOVERNMENTIn Montevideo, Uruguay this week, the Directors of all the major Internet organizations – ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, the…Continue

Tags: China, internet, governance, Brazil, Russia

So you think the cloud is Safe?

Started by Davy. Last reply by Chris Sep 26, 2013. 12 Replies

In the digital age, your files and memories are not truly yours any more. They belong to the cloudKYLE GOODWIN wants his stuff back. One day, he decided to set up a company in Ohio to …Continue

Tags: data, storage, computing, Cloud


Started by Doone has Fremdschämen. Last reply by Neal Sep 5, 2013. 2 Replies

ARE WE SMARTER YET? HOW COLLEGES ARE MISUSING THE INTERNETby Akim ReinhardtWe should all probably be a lot smarter…Continue


Wearable computers challenge human rights

Started by Davy Jul 24, 2013. 0 Replies

The thoughtless adoption of new technologies seduces us into providing more of our personal selves without any concerns for the protection of our personal data, argues Katina Michael an associate…Continue

Tags: sensors, information, technology, computers, rights

Your Daily Dot

Loading… Loading feed

Comment Wall

Nice Comment

You need to be a member of Internet to add comments!

Comment by Michel on January 9, 2013 at 2:14pm

Facebook apologizes for mistaking elbows for breasts

Facebook has come to its senses, apologizing for its banning of an indecent image that was hardly indecent at all. 

The image, as we reported yesterday, is of a girl sitting sideways in a tub. Her left elbow drapes over the side, and that elbow's what got it into trouble. 

As the folks at Web magazine Theories of the Deep Understanding of Things (TOTDUOT) learned, that elbow—with its pinkish pigmentation—looks a little too much like a breast for Facebook's moderators' liking.

They took the photo off TOTDUOT's Facebook page almost immediately, writing to the proprietors that it "violates Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities."

TOTDUOT made a big fuss of the yanking, posting all sorts of press clippings and supportive notes on its Facebook page for its 60,000 fans to see. 

That support may have actually played a hand in Facebook's reinstatement of the photo. Last night, TOTDUOT posted a note to its fan page detailing the turnaround. 

"We have never received any letters such as this one here," TOTDUOT wrote. "It's nice to know that tons of media exposure can actually make FB a little more sensible, or maybe a little more worried.

"One mission is accomplished then, though the more important issue, which is this pathetic fear of the human body and human sexuality, is far from being resolved. So no real tits and asses for you. Not even in a renaissance or in an abstract painting. 

"Try to enjoy those Hair-removal and breast implants ads, though."

Will do, TOTDUOT. And good on you, Facebook. Glad you two made up. 

Here's the original. See?


Comment by Chris on December 30, 2012 at 12:22am

Neal, When you say 'local system' do you mean in your house, in the neighborhood, or within the local cable network?

Had I known Diane Feinstein was going to bulldoze the amendments that offered us protections I would have protested in front of her office. It's terrible FISA was authorized for another 5 years. No doubt the NDAA will too without citizen action.

Comment by Michel on December 29, 2012 at 11:06am

Senate votes to let NSA, FBI keep spying on your email


As expected, the Senate has voted to keep the FISA Amendments Act, which will let government agencies like the NSA and FBI continue to monitor citizen emails without a warrant.

The Senate voted 73-23 to pass the Act Friday morning, after spending almost all day Thursday debating it. And not only did the Senate pass the extension—good for another five years—it voted down each of the four amendments designed to either limit its power or make it more transparent.

It voted down Ron Wyden (D-Oreg.)'s proposed amendment, which would have required the NSA to specify how many U.S. citizens it monitored. Wyden has long tried, unsuccessfully, to acquire that number. He addressed the Senate for hours Thursday, saying that it's necessary to ensure proper oversight of the NSA, but his colleagues were unconvinced, defeating the amendment 43-52. The amendments required 60 yes votes to pass.

"The only thing @RonWyden's amendment would do is give a general estimate of how many Americans are spied on. Yet Congress voted not to know," tweeted the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The night before, the Senate considered three other amendments. Jeff Merkey (D-Oreg.) proposed an amendment that reflected another of Wyden's pet causes: to make public the classified court interpretation of FISA (it was originally created to allow wiretapping of foreigners suspected of plotting against the U.S.) that lets it spy on U.S. citizens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) proposed that FISA simply be extended three more years instead of five.

Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the sole Republican to get heavily involved in either side of the debate, took a constitutionalist approach, noting that the Fourth Amendment provides "the right of people to be secure" against "unreasonable searches" without a warrant. His amendment, which would tack on an explicit clarification of how that amendment applies to the law, was the least popular, and was shot down 12-79.

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) claimed to speak for the White House when she argued at length against each amendment and in favor of FISA's passage, so it's expected the bill will be signed into law almost immediately.

Screengrab of Wyden via C-SPAN

Comment by Neal on December 29, 2012 at 2:56am

It appears most of those ladies are prostitutes, and they're getting free advertisement.

Comment by Neal on December 29, 2012 at 2:50am

Michel, that is very weird, have to check it out.

Comment by Neal on December 29, 2012 at 2:49am

Chris, I've used cable internet for years with no problem. The only downside with cable is that when everyone is up and using your local system it slows down some. 

Comment by Michel on December 28, 2012 at 6:13pm

Site lists women as prostitutes until they fork over $100

Pop quiz: How many times have you been called a ho? How many times has someone claimed, so colloquially, that you accept money for sex—that you're a call girl, a bawd, a hooker, a prostitute?

Now, how many times has that improper denotation played out over the Internet? And how many times has a record of your whorishness been plastered onto a website where your name and its factually inaccurate association will stand in infamy until you pay that site an upfront cost of $100?

If it hasn't happened to you yet, it very well could.

That's because there's a new slut shaming site on the Internet called Potential Prostitutes, a hybrid Busted! Mugshots-cum-IsAnybodyDown-style site that allows anonymous individuals to submit personal information for third parties they'd like to connote as prostitutes, a profession that's illegal in 49 of America's 50 states.

The site does little more than implicate individuals—almost exclusively women, though nothing on the site says that a submission has to involve a woman—as prostitutes, and it’s getting a lot of heat for the role it’s playing as a potential facility for libelous speech. If you think about it, I could personally submit a name, photo, location and phone number for free for any individual on my Bad List and forever—or until they pay up—label that person a prostitute, something that would affect the way they go about getting new jobs, foster new relationships, and basically live a normal life.

How's this even possible? According to Potential Prostitutes, the answer lies in the Communications Decency Act, which protects site owners from legal action based on what its users submit. It's the same act that allows sites like IsAnybodyDown and Hunter Moore's IsAnyoneUp to exist—and, as Forbes law blogger Kashmir Hill has explained, it's the same law that protects sites like Facebook and Twitter from being liable for everything their users post—so long as the posted subjects are 18.

The law implies that individuals can't sue the owners of Potential Prostitutes for anything that shows up on site. They can only go after the submitters. But as the site's submission page quickly shows, there's absolutely no need to submit your own personal information when you're indicting another individual as a prostitute. Submissions can be made anonymously.

So what can you do if your name and mug shows up the site? If you want it removed, your only option is to pay up. Site admins—who registered the domain under the name ofimprisoned Pirate Bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm, apparently as a joke—will remove your name and information from the site within 60 minutes.

Of course, that does nothing to help the fact that your listing will still show up on search engines until site spiders stop tracking your entry. And that could take weeks, months, or even years.

In other words, good luck out there. And don't cross anybody who's ever called you a ho.

Potential Prostitutes did not respond to the Daily Dot's request for comment.


Comment by Chris on December 26, 2012 at 9:54pm

I got my first internet account in 1993, before http, or Mosaic from a state agency because commercial internet service providers weren't available in the rural area I lived in. Their service was great. One of the things I particularly liked was that as part of the basic package subscribers were given web sites. As far as I know no private ISP's provide web sites with their basic service. I can have 6 email addresses with something like a total of 120 MB of storage, yet have to pay extra to host even the smallest of internet pages. Congress did a terrible job writing the rules by not requiring web hosting with their basic packages. Doing that would save a lot of server space.  I suppose by having consumers post pictures on commercial sites for example they become open source which benefits commercial interests. Are ISP's covered under Public Utility Committee regulations, or is it a free for all? The service is terrible. Just last week AT&T finally repaired a wet cable that was causing intermittent dropouts and speed problems since I subscribed to the account in February. At least 12 inside technicians came out to my house. All of the inside equipment was replaced numerous times. What a waste and needless cause of e-waste. They blamed the problem on my house wiring, saying that the hot and neutral wires were swapped. Fortunately I was able to check that myself and they were wired correctly. Finally after a lot of complaints they finally sent outside technicians out several times. Each time they found more problems beginning with bad splices and ending with an inside cable that was outside and wet causing intermittent grounds. Two outside techs ago, the guy who spliced out the wet cable said he saw another wet cable. The last outside guy who came out didn't see the wet cable the previous guy saw. The last guy who came out and said there were no more outside wiring problems was only able to get 8.26 MBs download speed. My account is for 18 MBs - so it still isn't working as it should. After I get the computer I normally used back from the shop that is replacing some bad IC's on the mother board I'll do some more testing and might try cable internet. I'd like to know how happy others are with their cable internet service.

Comment by Neal on December 26, 2012 at 4:35pm

In the early 90's I was on GEnie playing an air traffic control game using my modem that had a cradle for the phone. Fucking amazing.

Comment by Michel on December 26, 2012 at 4:15pm

Even the Zuckerbergs find Facebook privacy confusing

Even the Zuckerbergs don’t quite understand Facebook’s ever-changing privacy settings.

Mark Zuckerberg’s sister Randi found that out the hard way after one of her private Facebook pictures ended up on another website, The Atlantic Wire reported.

The former head of marketing for Facebook and the executive producer for Bravo’s Silicon Valley took VoxMedia marketing and projects director Callie Schweitzer to task after she posted a candid photo of Zuckerberg’s family reacting  to Facebook’s new Poke app to her public Twitter feed.

In a now-deleted tweet, Schweitzer posted the photo with the caption, “.@randizuckerberg demonstrates her family’s response to poke. #GAH.”


Photo via Topsy

Zuckerberg didn’t like her personal photos going around the Internet, so she quickly got snappy with Schweitzer on—what else?—Twitter.

“@cschweitz not sure where you got this photo. I posted it to friends only on FB. You reposting it to Twitter is way uncool,” Zuckerberg wrote in a tweet she has since deleted.

Schweitzer explained that it was an accident and that she thought the photo was public. Some grade-A snooping from Zuckerberg revealed the reason that Schweitzer was able to see the photo despite it being marked friends-only (as well as a flaw in Facebook’s privacy settings): Schweitzer is Facebook friends with Zuckerberg’s sister, and saw the post because her sister was also tagged in the Poke reaction photo.

The Atlantic Wire explains that the friends-only setting is not enough to hide photos from other prying eyes. The standard setting is that friends of friends tagged can also see the photos unless you change the setting on the actual album in which the photos are located.

Schweitzer deleted the tweet and photograph at the request of Zuckerberg but requested that the Facebook founder’s sister make it public so that more people could see and enjoy the photo.

“@randizuckerberg fwiw, i thought the photo was incredibly endearing which is why I liked it. We never see humans on the Internet!” Schweitzer tweeted.

Zuckerberg has yet to respond to Schweitzer on Twitter, but she did post a passive-aggressive message for her followers to note, leaving many who missed the previous conversation to wonder what happened.

“Digital etiquette: always ask permission before posting a friend’s photo publicly. It’s not about privacy settings, it’s about human decency,” Zuckerberg tweeted.



Members (15)


© 2018   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service