http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10457629-245.html :

While this article does not give enough detailed evidence to say that the Chinese government is basically sanctioning cyber-warfare against an American corporation, I would say that this article seems fairly damning to a Chinese government that denies any involvement in the Google issue. I remember reading somewhere about a Chinese military officer who wrote a report which encouraged a methodology of total warfare for the 21st century. I am remembering it because in the report, the officer specifically called for the Chinese government to use cyber-warfare.  We know well China’s human rights issues, so the hack into activists accounts is very suspicious to begin with. Add to that that the computer attacks originated from a school that probably does have ties to the Chinese military. I really would not be surprised to learn that the Chinese are utilizing students to launch cyber-attacks against “threats foreign and domestic.” It’s a great way to subvert the trail that leads back to the Chinese government itself.

In 1969, there was a sizable appetite for manned space exploration. U.S. astronauts landed on the moon, and the public was able to witness it. The success of the Apollo program invigorated NASA’s space program, and general enthusiasm for the possibilities of space. Since the beginning of space travel, there has always been an ambition to go further, faster, and longer. Efforts such as the International Space Station demonstrate a global commitment to collaboration on the mission to explore beyond our atmosphere. A recent NASA program, Constellation, was very similar to the Apollo program in that it seeks to put people on the moon again by 2020. President Obama’s recent budget proposal all but kills the Constellation program. However, a closer look at the budget demonstrates that space exploration itself is not dead yet.
Constellation was essentially seeking to put U.S. astronauts on the moon in a manner similar to the moon mission decades ago. A panel convened by Obama’s administration, which included former astronauts, deemed the Constellation program to be a stale effort, not worth the cost. This new approach does not doom U.S. space exploration. In fact, it could invigorate it.
The 2011 budget gives NASA $276 million more than the previous budget. And more increases are coming in the following years. According to The Washington Post, “the language in the budget repeatedly emphasizes technological innovation to make space travel less expensive.” This new focus is what NASA needs. George W. Bush’s call to get back to the moon was ambitious. But it was also arcane and short-sighted. NASA should seek a more well-rounded approach to its mission. Space travel should not just be about planting a flag on the moon for a must-see TV moment. In addition, fears that people will lose their jobs might be unrealistic. NASA has not been left behind. In consideration of the problems that we are having taking care of the one planet that we have, opportunities in space need to be explored. Former astronaut Sally Ride described the shift in focus as a vote of confidence for NASA that utilizes the Agency as an “engine of innovation.”
We can go to the moon. Recent evidence suggests that there is frozen water on the moon. Fresh water shortages on this planet are already present, and could soon become critical. We also need to find other options. Some believe that asteroids and other space debris may contain fresh water. There is limited evidence that there may be other planets outside of our solar system that are habitable. Gliese-581 e and Gliese-581 d both point us in the right direction. And even planets in our own system have resources (such as minerals) that people might be able to utilize back here on Earth.
The new budget is seeking innovations in space flight itself. This could lead to space taxis that will make travel and commerce around the planet even quicker. Furthermore, it is another way to travel that might prove friendly to the environment. Congestion and pollution in space will be more easily mitigated than it is within the atmosphere that we depend on. NASA can and should be working on making space travel faster and more efficient so that we might go even further than the moon. There is a renewed focus on encouraging private enterprise in the space travel sector. Private enterprise will create competition. This should increase quality and efficiency in a technological sector that needs innovation. The new budget also calls for any new exploration to be an international collaboration, according to The New York Times. The vast challenge of space does warrant cooperation. While delays by one country, or diplomatic issues, could hinder the overall program, it is worth a shot. The reasons for exploring space should not be merely about national pride. Everyone on this planet has a stake in what we do in space. The new approach proposed by the administration might just be a sustainable and effective path to space operations.

Net neutrality is an issue that deals with restrictions being placed on internet content.  The basic issue is that internet providers could be able to restrict access on certain content on the web because the provider does not agree with the content.  Some fear that internet service providers could make partnerships with companies and restrict access to competitors.  Basically, the people using the internet should decide what content is used and not ISPs deciding this for the people.

On September 21 2009, the Federal Communications Commission proposed certain guidelines to prevent the big ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T from blocking or restricting content.  These guidelines are as follows:

1) Consumers are entitled to access whatever lawful internet content they want.

2) Consumers are entitled to run whatever applications and services they want, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

3) Consumers can connect to networks whatever legal devices they want, so long as they do not harm them.

4) Consumers are entitled to competition between networks, applications, services and content providers.

5) Service providers are not allowed to discriminate between applications, services and content outside of reasonable network management.

6) Service providers must be transparent about the network management practices they use.[1]

It is important to note that these are just guidelines and none of this is law yet.  It is not known what would happen if one of the big ISPs violated these guidelines.

Two big companies that are actually for net neutrality are Google and Skype.  They claim that the cable and phone companies that control our access to the internet are stifling creativity and an open marketplace.  The CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, went so far as to write an open letter to users of Google about the threat that the big phone and cable companies pose to net neutrality.