Slashdot Mirror
The Letter That Won US Internet Control
K-boy writes "Pushing my own scoop, but I think it's a valuable piece of Net history, I have come into possession of the vital letter sent by Condoleezza Rice to the EU over Internet governance. And posted it on the Web.
The letter is pretty stern but you should also read it bearing in mind that letters of this type are not only very rare but they are always written in very, very soft diplomatic language. This was not.
The result of the letter was that the EU dropped its plan for an inter-governmental oversight body for the Internet and we have ended up with the status quo (ICANN, US government control).
The letter was never meant for publication."
Surely, at most, the control can only be over the root NS. If it's anything else, the UK citizens can always instruct their DNS cache to only respond on *.uk... Problems may occour for mirror sites of course.
Why UNIX?
How did you get this letter, and why did you post it? Isn't that slightly illegal?
Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
I don't see any hard comments in the letter. It's just like another soft-diplomatic letter to me. Is the submitter trying to get up a flamewar? no, not on /.
Way to go.
The alarming thing, though, I guess, is that this is considered "strong language" in diplomatic circles. It strikes me as direct, but quite tactful.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
I know this issue has been discussed a lot, and I'm all for keeping things the way they are (it simply works). HOWEVER, what does concern me is growing evidence of U.S. puritanism in the decision process, like the blocking of the .xxx domain on what seems like shallow premises. While the benefits of .xxx are a separate issue altogether, I doubt if European audiences would resist something like that unless they had a very strong reason to do so. I say let ICANN keep control as long as it doesn't become puritan-ized.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
if that is strong language, I don't want to read the 'soft' letters that are usually written. She lays out the reasons they want things the way they are and asks for the change to be reconsidered. After reading the summary I was expecting something more egregious.
There are a lot of folks here with a wide range of experience. Someone please explain to me why I should think this is a big deal.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Can the US, as it is now, stop French surfers from reaching a .FR domain? Can they stop them from reaching a .EU domain?
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
>> We believe that ICANN is dedicated to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities and to developing policy through consensus-based processes.
I am all for the ICANN doing its business. Heck, I would hate to have some big government manage the Internet. HOWEVER, I also do wish that the current administration would keep its grubby paws off the Internet as well! I am referring to the hoopla regarding the xxx domains!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
The letter was never meant for publication
You're new to politics, I take it..?
Interconnected actually.
-1, Wrong
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
What are the chances that Condoleezza Rice actually has any clue what the "authoritative root zone file" is?
I get the feeling that the head honchos at ICANN basically ran out of decent arguments for maintaining control ("erm, we just like the power buzz!") and just went for big political guns. I mean really, like there's a good excuse for keeping control other than potential political blackmail.
The Net was created by the US government, a whole bunch of US, Asian and Europeans built the hardware running it and a British guy invented the Web. Doesn't look like multicultural involvement has made it terribly unstable. I think China's Great Firewall is an excellent example of what happens when one government has too much control.
Call me cynical...
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
i saw that too, but i think it's most likely an error by the transcriber rather than the original correspondance.
ICANN is not a US government organization. It just happens to be on US soil (just like the UN).
.xxx tld, that the US made the decision. They just happened to agree that its unenforcable and stupid.
ICANN encourages government representation, which includes any country. They even have meetings all across the world, there's no excuse for these concerned countries not to participate.
People seem to think that because ICANN agreed with the US on the
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
FYI, the reason the U.S. Secretary of Commerce signed this was because the original government oversight, which is now semi-private through ICANN, was under the Commerce department. The current contract, to my knowledge, is still sole-sourced to ICANN through Commerce.
Maybe because we invented the damn thing!
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
I know this is Slashdot, but it looks like even the submitter hasn't read the article! Kind of odd as they also appear to be the person that wrote it...
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
Say they build XXX.. what then do you do about all the millions of smut websites in existence? force them to move?
what if someone has MUFFDIVER.COM and someone else has MUFFDIVE.NET.
My guess? the government took a good long look at the first amendment, and other legal issues, and realized, it would not solve any problem, and perhaps, a court case would arise (which they realize they would have to lose) embarrisingly enough.
Maybe that same case would open up a whole 'nuther mess of worms that would not be something they would have to face.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
was that included with the letter was a check from the U.S. government for an exorbitant amount of money.
It doesn't seem all that stern to me. I'd hate to see what's considered very very soft. I was half expecting to see Rice threatening to fuckiing bury that EU.
I have this hunch that a letter is printed out on paper, and therefore has a whopping big "gummint of the US of A" letterhead. And that an HTML transcript of it might contain typos.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
'The letter is pretty stern [clip] but they are always written in very, very soft diplomatic language. This was not.'
BS - this was as routinely softball as they come.
STERN: (of an act or statement) strict and severe; using extreme measures or terms. How was this letter 'pretty severe'?
Hardly anything 'stern' or extreme about such phrases as '...in the spirit'
As for the claim that the wicked witch sent it, Carlos signed it as well, with his name before hers, signaling tacit involvment by her at the most. You give her far too much credit, in any case.
I'd hate to see your reaction when faced with truly harsh language.
The letter appears plausible. However, I could find nothing to indicate how the poster came into possession of the letter. Under those circumstancs, I am not ready to accept it as genuine.
If you read the full sentence...
The four principles the United States issues on June 30, 2005, reinforce the continuing U.S. commitment to the Internet's security and stability, including through the historical U.S. role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.
The word "issues" is not a noun (as in "the Monday issue of the newspaper") but a verb ("The supply officer issues equipment to the troops.") The US issued four principles.
It's also interesting to note that the submitter also appears to be the original author of the Register article.
After reading it several times, I would also question its authenticity. While I don't claim to any expertise on how the Internet inner guts work, referring to "the authoritative root zone file" just doesn't sound right. I have nothing to really back that up other than it doesn't pass the smell test.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Thing that tweaks me, is that the article submitter touts that he's the first/only one with the letter, blah blah blah. Correspondence verbosity and accuracy are key for it to be credible. That's really my point - got that down there "wfberg"? Good.
why did you have to qualify that with the word "black" I don't care if Condi, is black, white, blue or beige, nor should it matter to you or anyone else. SO you should have just said "....is one of the most intelligent people in the USA"
Glad I don't live in the USA though, it strikes me as the most racist country in the Western World.
I like the letter. Rice has a point.
.xxx fiasco has shown ICANN is very much under the thumb of the US government and can't seem to make decisions (especially decisions that are contrary to the ideology of the admininistration or its Christian fundamentalist base) without an 'a-OK' from them. Thats wrong.
However, the administration should follow what they preach. As the recent
From paragraph 3, with my emphasis:
So, what Condi is saying is "For the love of all that's holy, don't decentralize the control of the Internet! Because decentralization in general is what makes it great!"
Good for goose, good for the gander? Or are the goose and gander (control versus structure and content) properly different in this case?
My bad, tongue. That's what I get for using aspell :)
--fatboy
I think the UK backed down over this - I wonder about the outcome if the French held the presidency.
Agree with the rest of your statement
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
I read no less than three typos total (one extra space, two grammar). Direct correspondance is the most meticulous of all and the brevity of this letter means it was almost certainly developed in several drafts. So it has to be the Register's mistake (assuming this is legitimate). They probably just got it from email.
The specific country headings all depend on the format of delivery. If a physical letter, then these would be seperate sections for that at the top and bottom of the document. I actually have never seen official electronic correspondance, but I would imagine its formated with PDF or similar.
It seems the UK gov likes to leak stuff. If not the government, then many of the staffers there do.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
This is really not a valid argument. First of all, you can't possibly FORCE smut vendors to use .xxx -- first, it's impossible, and second, it goes against the nature of the Internet. Secondly, please remember that the First Amendment you refer to is an AMERICAN constitutional amendment. It isn't right to bind the Internet -- undeniably an international entity now -- by American laws. Even if you were, I very much doubt that free speech would allow a blanket ban on the .xxx domain.
My question is this: granted that the .xxx domain may not solve too many problems, is there any reason to BAN it?? I'm sure a lot of websites would WANT it, and you could price it at a much higher premium than .com or .net. There are no technical issues -- the only true objection I can see is puritanism. Remember, we aren't talking about FORCING people to move over to .xxx -- such enforced censorship is ineffective and largely a waste of time. It's more likely that .xxx will become more of a "status symbol" among porn vendors and actually sell.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
you guys say that, but i doubt you could point out a single incident where a citizen was restrained from protesting the government.
MUFFDIVER.COM.XXX and MUFFDIVE.NET.XXX if they really want to keep their old TLD strings?
Yes, I know that means reserving TLD.XXX, but that shouldn't be a problem.
Actually, I think it's supposed to be "issued" (being past tense), and I think that would also make it an intransitive verb in this context, since it appears to take no direct object. Maybe the English teachers out there will disagree, though. I think this is exactly what the grandparent poster was pointing out. At any rate, I'd agree that it seems to be poorly written for an official government correspondence. It could be a completely average letter, maybe they're all this bad.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
consider- the first ISP to BLOCK XXX system wide?
Say AOL blocks XXX, and a lawsuit by a user is created..
perhaps that would have repurcussions that the US government might not want to have to deal with?
It isn't right to bind the Internet -- undeniably an international entity now -- by American laws.
I refer you to the TITLE of this slashdot
IT: The Letter That Won US Internet Control
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Not to be a grammar nazi, but just makes us here in the USA look like we're stupid (as if we didn't need more help in that regards).
So why did they grant ".biz", ".info" etc.? And don't tell me they don't grant ".xxx" because they actually learned somthing.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Anything from the Register that can't be collaborated should be considered FABRICATED
To whom it may concern,
We invented it, we built it, and we own it.
Piss off.
Sincerely,
Carlos M. Guiterrez Secretary of Commerce
Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State
As usual, an entire page letter that could be shortened to a sentence: "We own it and won't give away!". Why do politicians always speak so much?
And this can be shortened to a single setence because it is diplomatic speach. Internal politics are even worse, almost everything they say have exactly no content.
You know, it is kind of frustating (and I know I can't change this).
EOR (End of Rant) :(
Rethinking email
Then you havn't exprienced a real racist country in the western world. Like a country where labour unionist stop foreigners from going to work and screams "GO HOME! GO HOME!".
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
It's more like "Peace in our time" as this issue isn't going anywhere fast. It will come up, if not the Europeans then some of the Asian countries.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
I actually think that's an excellent idea.. assign them in duo for a time of year or two, then end the old ones.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I second the notion! I call tentative BS until we get better proof.
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
you guys say that, but i doubt you could point out a single incident where a citizen was restrained from protesting the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
She's black, but why wasn't it mentioned how tall she was, or how much she weigh?
What does skin color have to do with anything exactly?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
you guys say that, but i doubt you could point out a single incident where a citizen was restrained from protesting the government.
Stepped right into the cut.
May the Maths Be with you!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/o ctober/16/newsid_2535000/2535301.stms /main1070503.shtmli etnam092799.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/23/politic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/2000/v
Need more? Use google you ignoramus fucktard.
... major symptom: the inability to distinguish international private commerce from international government.
Learn this and engrave it on the inside of your skull: unlike mutually voluntary free trade, GOVERNMENT IS FORCE. The only thing it can do is either compel things, or let them alone. Add more government, add more interference.
The internet is international because the USA government, in choosing to leave well enough alone, has not prevented international private parties from cooperating - or from speaking freely. Do you think the UN would be so accomodating? If that were their plan, why would they have any motivation to change the status quo? The only plausible answers are respectively: that they intended to interfere, and that their power grab was predicated upon an intent to wield their newly acquired power - probably in support of repression (since, starting from freedom of speech, that's the only open direction of change).
So the question becomes: do you prefer freedom, or more government?
If you answer the latter, you make yourself my enemy.
Why is is moderated as a flame bait?
. php
This is exactly what happend in sweden to latvian construction workers. See http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/21/news/laval
Also, it's almost impossible to find work in sweden with an arabic or african name even if you are educated at one of the state universitys. The are examples of people sending houndreds of applications and not even getting a letter back saying that they are being considered for the position. When these people emigrate i britian, canada, usa they find employement almost instantly.
So stop moderating things as flamebait just because it doesn't fit your world view. I though the readers of slashdot liked freedom of expression, or does that only apply when it's the "correct" expression?
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
"The Right Honourable Jack Straw..."
Out of curosity, since when would an American English user use the British English spelling?
Also, would an "official diplomatic entity allow" a raw typo like:
"growth and adaptation , based on" (extra space)
Sure, it could be a typo by the editor, this is The Register ® , of course.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Actually, I think it's supposed to be "issued" (being past tense)
I agree...I noticed that after reading through some of the comments posted while writing my own.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Why all the fuss about the DNS root zone when the real problem with US control of the Internet is that US educational institutions like MIT and Stanford have more IPv4 address space than all of China? Fair IP allocation is what we need!
IPv6 is what we need. Look at the glass as half full, those US institution are encourage/accelerating the switch to IPv6. The hoarding IPv4 perspective is shortsighted. Reallocation does not solve the problem, it postpones the problem a little bit. Getting over IPv4 and moving to IPv6, the soon the better, those institutions are doing us all a favor. It would be interesting to know if encouraging IPv6 has factored into their internal discussions.
I don't think there's ANY country where nobody has ever in any way been punished or discouraged from exercising their free speech. Governments like control, and don't like rabble-rousers. I think it's safe to say that throughout the United States, Europe, and most of the Western world you will not be locked up simply because you are expressing beliefs that dissent from the majority. But in all of these countries, there are examples of free speech being curtailed in some way. That's life. It's always been that way, and will always be that way.
It's not your internet, we paid for our part.
Hooking a TV up to the cable network doesn't give you control over the cable network.
You have decentralized nothing, squat.
Wrong. The Internet currently is under 'centralized' CONTROL and DECENTRALIZED NATURE established by the US. But, if the UN gets control, then countries like China can have an influence - with an ultimate goal of 'decentralized' control with CENTRALIZED NATURE... an Internet run by the Chinese Government. Basically, you're using double-talk. You're trying to say that, currently, somehow the Internet has centralized control and a centralized nature - but they're two different things. And, to further prevent shallow counter-argument, I am NOT saying that a decentralized Internet gives us 'centralized' nature. I am saying merely that decentralizing control gives the possibility of 'centralizing' the nature of the Internet.
Really, for you to convince me that the US needs to change who controls the Internet, you would have to convince me that there's something fundamentally wrong with the Internet that is caused by the US having control over the Internet. So far, I have seen no one state what is wrong with the current Internet other than the US having control - and that's just a circular argument.
Very few countries have as much hatred directed against them as the US. Maybe USA should get its act together to where countries would democratically vote to keep it in control, instead of having to threaten and bully!
That sounds like a bunch of whining. I don't think the current US administration with its strong International stance really cares if a bunch of people say they hate the US. If there really was such a hatred for the US, then other countries would not trade with the US, negotiate with the US, etc. But, money talks.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
What is good for the U.S. is good for the Internet.
Either the letter had bad grammar, the transcription had bad grammar, or there was intentional bad grammar injected into the copy that the reporter got--a sort of fingerprint:
"The four principles the United States issues on June 30, 2005" was written in a letter dated this November.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Others have noted grammatical errors highly unlikely in a diplomatic letter.
Even without those errors - Where is the proof that this is real?
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
i would much rather have the united states in control than some beurocratic UN organization that's been proven it has members that can be bought.
granted, the US can be bought, too
Priceless.
You can't take the sky from me...
From: Condi (C-note) Rice, State Dept.
To: Jack Straw and my dogs in theForeign affairs committee , london
Listen Bitches,
The way the internet is ran is important to us in the US. It contributes to our gdp by way of Amazon, Ebay, Skype, Pr0n and Google. We believe our crew should continue to run it. Theres tons more loot to be made and we need make sure our cut isnt disturbed.
As the big summit meeting approaches we want to let you know that the internet in its current supervision is the path we should all maintain. We will not accept any change of governance.
Now a good pimp will realize that you cant have employees on every corner. You get a piece and we get a piece. Thats how we show love and mad respect. We dont need one large pimp orgaziniation and a bunch of street clockers slowing the flow and skimming off the top.
You can bet damn-sure that we will enforce without predjudice and with Shock-and-awe our four prinicples we sent you earlier. Its nothing personal, just business yo.
The US and European Unions have been rolling together for some time now, and we appreciate all your support in our drive-bys in Iraq,Afghanland and points east. But dont mistake our kindness for weakness. The internet was created by our vice president Al Gore, and we must have our sovereignty. Respect is earned not given.
Cool, we out. Dont forget to swing by our Christmas house party at 1600 pensylvania ave in wash, dc. Chicken and beer will be served.
One,
C-Note
Poverty alleviation?
Not at all like what has happened in India right? A country that went right from ag -> IT... But thats not poverty alleviation... no... not at all...
Who or what is that talking about?
Apparently you don't know how to read, as that made perfect sense to me.
What exactly is the problem? If the US is so hands off why are they keeping control? And what do they want to control it for?
Because the other side isn't pushing for LESS governmental control. Understand this: This is a pissing match pure and simple.
What is so important about root zone files?
Ahh, I understand now... You're clueless...
Apart from putting more politicians in control that is?
Umm... Yeah. Dumbshit.
Is it something to do with taking the bribes outside the USA?
I'm sure those who take bribes have no trouble taking them from those outside the USA....
hard core geek-ware
It is a flamebait because, while apparently against racism, it was actually more racist than the comment itself. Screaming that the black ones are better is just as racist as screaming that the green ones are. So, if you do it and at the same time say that racism is bad bad bad, then you're a hypocrite. /. lacks such a moderation tag, so it becomes flamebait instead. Satisfied with the explanation?
Global warming is a cube.
Did anyone else think this sentence sounded weird?
... the United Kingdom, because they seem to propose just that.
We regret the recent positions on Internet governance(i.e., the "new cooperation model") offered by the European Union, the Presidency of which is currently held by the United Kingdom, seems to propose just that - a new structure of intergovernmental control over the Internet.
If you set aside all of those dependent clauses you get "We regret the recent positions on Internet governance offered by the European Union seems to propose just that."
I would have expected "We regret that the recent positions..."
or maybe
We regret the recent positions
Additionally, "positions" (plural) should have the verb "seem." Either our leaders have poor grammar, or this is bogus AND our leaders have poor grammar.
The question was why MY comment was moderated as a flamebait. Where did I show racism in comment? I just pointed out that the united states is not the most racist country in the western world and to suggest that is wrong. I clearly demonstrated one country that has more inherent racism than the united states. I am however not saying that the united states has had and still has serious problems with racism, most of it coming from the morally corrupt institution of slavery and the treatment of black people after the ending of slavery.
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Um.... you Europeans wouldn't even have the WWW if it hadn't been for Al Gore creating the Internet !
I hate call waitin`~+~~~
NO CARRIER
i'm sure to you, this article was the God's honest truth, whereas to another more reasonable person, the article would have more substance like the name of one of the FBI officer's for instance.
the guy in the article sounds like he made it all up, but you wouldn't entertain that because it tickles all your hippie fantasy buttons
Example 1) Free Speech zone = citizens restrained from protesting the government in a specific place. No attempts made to curtail actual speech.
Example 2) ""We've heard," they told him "that you've been discussing President Bush, oil, Osama bin Laden" and other political matters. Barry was dumbfounded. "A lot of people have," he pointed out, and as far as he knew that was still allowed."You do, of course, have freedom of speech," one of the agents reassured him. "Thank you for reminding me," Barry replied. "This discussion is over." Intimidation maybe, but no attempts made to curtail actual speech. And the whole story sounds completely fishy to me anyway.
Example 3) "250 demonstrators had gathered to try and prevent conscripts from entering the building when the arrests were made." No attempts made to curtail actual speech.
Example 4) "Local deputies arrested 12 anti-war protesters for violating a new ban on roadside parking and camping near President Bush's ranch." No attempts made to curtail actual speech.
Example 5) "16,000 people picketed the White House and marched on the Capitol... only four arrests were made." "More than 250,000 protesters -- some estimates went as high as 500,000 -- poured down Pennsylvania Avenue..." "...more than 200,000 people attending rallies under the auspices of the National Peace Action Coalition." "The day would end with more than 7,000 arrests... thwarting an attempt to tie up key bridges into the city."
See, here's the problem. When you use worthless examples like this to prove that "there's no free speech in AmeriKKKA!" then it makes it a lot harder to get people to pay attention when the government really *is* up to some shenanigans. Trespassing and demonstrating and exposing the hypocrisy of the man via street theatre, big puppets, and not bathing might be a lot of things, but they're not *speech*.
I challenge you to find ONE instance of a UN tax.
Just one.
All I need.
I have conclusive proof of the Roswell incident, if only I can get it to you before I am cens :@SD{F CGV NO CARRIER.
(that film sounded funny)
"regard" ;)
--
make install -not war
completely forgetting that "we" are all in this world together and that if "we" learn to work with "them" then "all of us" can achieve our goals.
Wow what a load of crap. How about we stick a huge "under certain conditions" label onto that?
Global warming is a cube.
bullshit -- they said the same things about .info and .biz, and yet they popped up magically on the Internet. my point is on discerning the difference between introducing .info and .biz, and introducing .xxx. there is no technical difference.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
The issue was not control of the WWW. It was control of DNS, which is a mechanism of the Internet at large. Yes, DNS affects the WWW. It also affects IRC, FTP, and every other type of service that is accessed via the Internet.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate revolver. and since he is so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him real quick and give it to him.
-Jack Handey
Wait a minute...
.info and .biz? they were trying to force all the businesses to drop .com and to move to .info and .biz?
are you sure you understand what the debate is about and how someone who owns pussy.com and a different party owns pussy.net, they both cannot have pussy.xxx?
perhaps you should read my initial reply. i said that while forcing people to move is not viable, making the domain available is free market commerce. my point was that a lot of porn sites might actually WANT .xxx. i explicitly said that forcing people to move was 1) not viable and 2) against the nature of the net. perhaps you should read my bullshit first...
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
the US gov't has a "social jail"? was government oppression involved? or did normal people just put you in "social jail" because you were behaving like a total douchenozzle?
can you at least give us a few examples of these "little rules" we have "for everything"?
I like to think of governments as particularly firmly established and powerful insurance companies.
Basically, a government collects insurance premiums (taxes), pays its employees and executives (senior government officials) with both money and perks, enacts programs to help prevent the need to pay out on claims (e.g. law enforcement, safety departments, education to hopefully provide employable skills, etc.), and pays out to victims of certain types of misfortune (either directly in the form of monetary aid or with other support paid for with tax money.)
As you point out, though, the difference between a government and, say Lloyd's of London or Allstate or whoever is that governments can compel the purchase of their products with armed force. (Don't believe me? Try refusing to pay your taxes...)
The only real differences between different governments are how quickly the guns come out when they want to offer a new "product" ("Democratic" governments are kind of like public companies in that the shareholders often get to vote on new programs [though all kinds of shenanigans can be performed by government authorities to sway the vote or work around a vote that doesn't go the way they want] first, and are then asked more or less politely to participate a few times before the guns come out. Despotic governments break out the guns as part of the planning of the new "product"), what kinds of situations they cover (e.g. degree of health-care provided, how much education is subsidized, etc) and how well they cover them, and what proportion of the premiums gets skimmed off to pay for the salaries, bonuses, and perks of the government officials and employees.
Or so I like to think.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
oh yeah you're right i think cindy sheehan didn't get enough media coverage. in fact, i remember a memo from the Bush people explicitly telling the media: "oh the protest zone is over by the barn right there. don't try to look for them by the side of the road. nothing to see there. hurry up, mosey on over there."
The Register is a very opinionated publication, and this article, like most, is heavily laden with emotional bias and innuendo. I have no problem with that, per se, but I am confused because K-boy's articles from the Tunis conference seemed to be contradictory.
I recall one article which quoted the head of the ITU bragging that -- because of EC support? -- the ITU (the international consortium of telephone companies and nationalized telephone utilities) would control the Internet within five years. K-boy, the Register reporter, was appropriately horrified at that prospect, and pointed out that ITU controls in the past would have quashed the Internet, simply never let it be born.
Now, however, in his article about Rice's forceful US defense of the status quo, the same reporter seems again disturbed (if perhaps less than horrified) that the US is not more open to international governmental influences, and is not more willing to adapt Internet control to the likes of the ITU.
So where *do* you stand, K-boy?
Many of us Netcitizens are willing to put up with the imperfections of the current Internet governance -- hoping that strong contractual obligations on an independent administrator will, minimally, guarrantee the ongoing availability of connections -- rather than see control of the Net slide into the hands of greedy, lowest-common-denominator, trans-national bureaucrats, of which the ITU is a preeminent example.
Didn't Condi's letter and the US lobbying campaign save us from the ITU, a fate worst than (or perhaps equivalent to) death for the Internet as we know it?
One thing Rice's letter suggested to me was the advantage of the home-town team, the established owner and manager, over uppity rebels with independent ideas. The same thing, I fear, would be true of the advantage the ITU regulators would have over disorganized international libertarians, if the US were to declare the Net's infrastructure to be up for grabs. If Internet governance -- which may only today be an oximoron -- were to slide into the international political arena, wouldn't it only be a matter of time before Real Control would be seized by the organization with the best financing, technical savvy, and skills at political infighting?
The current ITU president obviously thinks that it is a foregone conclusion that the ITU would be that organization. Anyone want to predict the future of the Net that would follow?
What does the history of the ITU tell us about the prospects for future innovation and disruptive change in an Internet controlled by the ITU?
Just because the US government is a proponent of a position does not mean that it is wrong.
1) Create a not-for-profit organization 2) ??? 3) Profit!! (sorry, any /. thread must have a BP)
Million Dollar Screenshot
You're right to criticize some of the points made, but I think your concept of "speech" is a bit narrow. If someone chooses not to say the pledge of allegience, or not to remove their hat during the star spangled banner, they are making a statement, even if no words are used.
As for disparaging "street theatre" & "big puppets," well they've been used as means of expressing speech for as long as anyone can remember. Even the Soviet Russians hid gov't criticism from the censors under the guise of theater.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
What? The history of the Internet's growth was based on private-sector investment? Intergovernmental structure would be a burden? As everybody on Slashdot knows, this is a complete rewrite of history. From the late 1960s and before even that, up until the mid-1990s when NSFnet began handing things over to corporate America, the Internet was funded by, invested in, and overseen by the US government. There was absolutely no private-sector investment, just government funds sent to the private sector. The government paid for decades of R&D to create the Internet, and oversaw its creation. Now she is trying to claim that the Internet was created by private sector investment, and that government oversight would just cramp what she says the private-sector investment created. And of course, neither she nor Bush has any intentions of removing government oversight from the Internet. What a joke!
i'm sure to you, this article was the God's honest truth, whereas to another more reasonable person, the article would have more substance like the name of one of the FBI officer's for instance.
Surely you realise that publishing the names of FBI agents engaged in their duties would be bordering on sedition. In fact under new measures of the PATRIOT ACT, such un-American activity could send a man to The Tower^H^H^H Guantanamo Bay.
May the Maths Be with you!
Something about this smells like week old tuna. Aside from Afghanistan, what was being bombed in (or prior to) October of 2001?
Bush has done enough without piling bullshit on top of it, I think.
And here's the encounter:
Chilling. Definitely chilling. Officers showed up, did nothing, and left. This poor guy is being oppressed hard! Call in the UN!
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Seems that Ms.Rice has also been tough on the EU in other matters. She's told them to back down on this matter: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4497006. stm
My web domain.
I agree - the prospect of US puratanism is scary. Look at the oppression of pornography occurring now! For instance, I have a terribly hard time finding movies of bare naked women oozing semen from their orifices while other women lick it up. I think Bush is probably behind it...
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Mr. of Borg,
a) It has been pretty firmly established here that "Condi" likely had minimal involvement in this.
b) When the letter says "Internet structure", they are, like any well written position piece, sticking to the topic of the letter - in this case the DNS and TLD structure. VOIP is not a vital part of the Internet structure, and quite frankly, the VOIP issue (and P2P issue) you bring up is wildly different, involving enforecement of copyright and fair competition and consumer protection laws already in place. It is already accepted that the US (when involving companies on its soil) is the ultimate arbiter of law. They aren't overstepping their bounds in the VOIP, etc case.
c) "Condi" was likely not instructed to do anything. She was probably asked to lend her name to the document to add weight, and at her own volition chose to do so, likely because she agreed with the contents. If she had chosen not to sign it, it probably would have been shopped around until someone else with some weight behind their name did. I won't comment on her motives, as I'm obviously not privvy to them, but there are rules of diplomacy that aren't all that dissimilar to the rules of Poker. If you tip your hand by expressing an interest in something, your opponent can use that item you are interested in as leverage. By the same token, you try not to give anything away. So the question is, did we tip our hand because we REALLY want to keep this power, or because we simply don't want to budge unless we absolutely have to? This is the equivalent of the US saying "I'll call your bet". We're not raising, and we're not folding.
d) Doublespeak is not unique to the Bush admin. Note Clinton's waffling on the definition of "intercourse" and his "Slick Willy" nickname (used across party lines, even on rare occasions by his supporters). Doublespeak, non-commital phrases, misdirection, etc, are hallmarks of politics, diplomacy, and sales. Never commit until all the cards are in your favor (or forced to), manipulate your opposition to obtain what you need, share (resource and informationally) only what is needed for your ends to be met. Shades of Sun-Tsu - at one degree or another, these are the basics of most social interaction. The more you have to lose, the more rigorously you adhere to these tenets. This is one of the reasons that power and corruption tend to go hand in hand ("absolute power corrupts absolutely"). You don't amass and maintain power without mastering these skills ("a fool and his money are soon parted"). The Bush administration has arguably made the LEAST use of this, as they tend to speak to the press less frequently than other administrations and therefore have less need of watching their language. I won't exactly defend the Bush administration, but your comment here speaks more of your political leanings than it does any actual thought you put into the argument.
Oh, and try resistance every once in a while. I think you'll find it quite effective, especially in electronics.
Oh, was that my outside voice?
I think he is referring to people not being friendly because he doesn't follow certain social norms. Probably related to showing, deodorant, burping, and/or spitting. We have a lot of little rules that we don't like to be around people when they don't follow them, 75% are hygienic, 10% are behavior, 10% is attitude (douche-nozzles, elitists, snobs, etc.) and 5% is miscellaneous.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
ROTFL... Good one. I wish I could mod this up, too!
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
> A "Free Speech Zone" is about limiting citizens to excercising free speech in certain areas. Mainly to keep them out of your area.
I agree 100% and find the practice detestable. However, I think that it's a huge jump from "you can say whatever you want, you just can't say it wherever you want" to "there's no free speech in America" as is so often claimed here.
> 250 demonstrators had gathered: In some situations, the action itself can be considered a form of speech.
They didn't just gather, they did it to block access to a public building. I don't see how that can be an activity protected in any way by the 1st Amendment. And yes, my concept of speech is a bit narrow - but I restricted my comments specifically to the definition of speech as outlined in the 1st. In the examples given, speech was never interfered with (except in that one shady story) and neither were peacable assemblies - even when those assemblies numbered in the hundreds of thousands.
My comments about puppets and theatre, however, were just me being a smartass. Every time the trust-fund anarchists roll into town for whatever the cause du jour is, I can never stop wondering exactly what it is they're going on about with those big papier mache busts of what looks like the cast of The Golden Girls. The the inevitable "Hey hey! Ho ho! Blah blippy blah has got to go!" chants start and I have to turn off the tv and go stare at the clouds for a while to clear my head.
...until the letter and its content is officially disclosed and there is nothing in the purposed content that would make it undiscloseable.
If people take this letter as true with the meager proof (essentially none) provided then they need to stop using email.
It is also extremely hard to see that this letter should have such an impact on the EU if it was indeed real. Lastly the source is The Register, is that meant to count favourably to the story? I think not.
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
I like to think of governments as particularly firmly established and powerful insurance companies.
I like to think of governments as particularly firmly established and powerful insurance companies, with guns. The police, armies and navies are what make the difference. My automobile insurance company can't arrest me for smoking pot or not declaring all of my income, my government can.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
So why did they grant ".biz", ".info" etc.? And don't tell me they don't grant ".xxx" because they actually learned somthing. .xxx was intended to be mandatory. No current domains have that requiremen and thus .xxx would be alone in causing all kinds of freedom of expression problems. Therefore your comparison is meaningless.
OK, an obnoxious Anonymous Coward, lying about what I said by misquoting me in both your posts, with analysis like "good luck with that" and "Seriously. Get Help", closing with "Over and out", tells me that cliches (that I did not post) are worthless. The irony is so complete, that I'll hold you to your promise to shut up now.
--
make install -not war
No, but I would make the argument that .biz suffers from the same lack of justification as .xxx does. What exactly is the point of .biz? To create more namespace? How exactly does that work when all of the "good" names are instantly snatched up by Cybersquatters? How does it help me when my organization now needs to register our .biz domain just to keep another cyber/typosquatter from jumping on it to either extort us for it or make a few ad bucks when our clients wind up at it by mistake?
All these extra TLDs only seem to exist to make money for ICANN and the registors IMHO. Even the enforced ones like .museum seem rather redundant -- what's wrong with .org exactly?
Perhaps ICANN should be working on getting non-English TLDs working instead of creating all of these new ones that don't serve any point.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I actually think that's an excellent idea.. assign them in duo for a time of year or two, then end the old ones.
How do you justify ending the old domain? Running a porn site on muffdiver.com is not illegal.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I'm worried that I'm feeding a troll here, but I'll take your post at face value.
It's not bad, but there's plenty that could be improved. Ask yourself why:
- the original protocols haven't evolved to keep up with use, resulting in many pseudo-standards and a lot of edge cases that don't work
- spam is rendering things like e-mail and Usenet less usable by the day
- identity theft and large scale fraud are being perpetrated on a wide scale, thanks largely to inherently difficult-to-secure protocols
- similar protocols allow DDoS attacks that can cripple an organisation or even cause it to fail, on the whim of some 14-year-old Russian cracker
- dubious web sites are distributing at best accidentally unhelpful and at worst deliberately damaging information on subjects regulated in the real world, such as medicine, law or finances
- there is little international co-operation on anything but the most serious crimes; they might get the occasional child porn sicko, but minor yet still hurtful defamation takes place all the time, because with effective anonymity comes the freedom to say whatever you like and damn the consequences
- the much-cited architectural robustness in the face of disruption isn't really that robust at all
- the US government does meddle pretty directly with the development of the systems, even though the rest of us don't necessarily share its supporters' Christian right beliefs
and so the list goes on.Little of this is directly related to the technical issue at hand, of course, but I think there are plenty of reasons the Internet as it's evolved isn't as good as it could be if we were making the decisions today with what we now know.
The problem isn't pride, it's that the US government has demonstrated repeatedly that it doesn't give a shit about the international community's views on issues as fundamental as going to war or the health of the planet, and it's willing to make any sacrifices it deems necessary to further its own business and economic interests. This is why the EU, amongst others, would be more than happy for the US government not to have direct control over any aspect of a fundamental technology on which they rely. It's the same reason we're developing an independent GPS-style satellite network, and collaborating on EU-wide defence agreements and technology, and making up our own minds on going to war for oil, and countless other things.
Oh, for goodness' sake, quit with the "we created it" crap already. Sure, the US paid the majority (but by no means all) of the very early money several decades ago, and did a lot (but by no means all) of the very early research. The US is not responsible for all of the work even going back that far, and it certainly isn't responsible for many of the advances that have given the Internet most of the success it's had over the past decade or so.
However, the fact that you apparently don't know that (or choose to ignore/disbelieve it) is an excellent example of why the rest of us don't want you guys in charge any more.
IIRC, there was nothing in the original proposals that specified that the UN would be involved in running the Internet instead of ICANN (though as screwed up organisations go, ICANN are one of the few to really give the UN a run for their money). The important point was simply that it would be something under multilateral control, not a talking shop for the US government.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Is the big fat check that when with every copy of this letter send :-P
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
...as the old saying goes.
Despite being aware that Condi would still be an ever-faithful lieutenant for the representatives of the infernal regions that are currently inhabiting the White House, I think we need to concede that in this instance, for once she's actually managed to make herself genuinely useful. Even more surprising, the letter was actually worded in a somewhat competent and eloquent manner.
Despite also being aware that no doubt, this move was motivated primarily by the American government's own interests rather than any form of higher altruism, it is still something for which I feel a rather deep sense of both gratitude and elation. The Americans currently responsible for the Internet might have their faults, but I suspect most of us would agree that given a choice between them or the likes of Mugabe or Britain's Prime Minister Wormtounge, our best interests lie with the former.
We can only hope that the UN/other such parties will accept Condi's admonition to back off as final, and will not again attempt to usurp jurisdiction of the Internet at some point in the future.
The US doesn't really "control" the Internet; instead, other nations choose to use the same conventions as the US--for now. If the US screws up on governance, the rest of the world can create its own system. Furthermore, the transition to such a system could be done fairly quickly and with backwards compatibility.
You're kidding right? Al-J is considered to be one of the most balanced media outlets available. Their producers are KNOWN for getting really pissed trying to make sure their news spots and guest speakers aren't crazy american rhetoric spewers OR local nationalist fundamentalists. Try reading or watching it sometime to decide for yourself... not just being told that "it's bad".
The funniest part of the "bomb al-jazeera" story is the geography.
Where is the HQ of Al-Jazeera? Doha, Quatar.
Where was the HQ of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Doha, Quatar.
Shades of Milo Minderbinder, the planes taking off to bomb their own airfield.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
FWIW, I think they probably meant the TV channel headquarters.. I've watched it a couple of times, and it seemed pretty much like any news channel to me. I don't remember it being that political nor extremist. I don't understand Arabic, or course, but they also broadcast news in English.
They 've got a home page, too.
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
The people who wanted to make it mandatory were US politicians - those who control ICANN "just fine".
.xxx domain is a bit censorial, it isn't anywhere in the same league since we don't have .xyz or .foofoo domains either and you'll note that the stated intent of this latest .xxx proposal was for the industry to "clean up its act" which is code for self-censorship.
Although not obvious I think you and I are in agreement. The push for mandatory use was by politicians and they realized that no way that would pass muster with the US 1st ammendment so since it couldn't be used to censor the net, it was abandonded - at least by those moral crusaders. While not allowing an "opt-in"
Clinton and Balir justified the bombing of the Yugoslavian TV station 5 years ago that killed a couple of dozen reporters, technicians, janitors and makeup ladies because they were carrying propaganda, in other words they werent repeating the NATO BS word for word.
I don't doubt it, but bombing Doha, when we have our main air base in the region in Qatar strikes me as somewhat incongruent and politically insensitive at the least to those who allow us as guests to use their land to store our military aircraft. Maybe we can launch air strikes against the nuclear weapons infrastructure in India, Pakistan, and Israel too. It would make as much sense from a global politics perspective...
My guess is that Bush's comments were even less thoughtless in this area than Pat Robertson's (re: Chavez). The conversation probably went something like this:
Bush: Those *&$# "reporters" at Al Jezeera! We should just bomb their headquarters and get it over with.
Blair: George, I hope you are not serious. May I remind you that you have a major air base in Qatar. Please promise me you won't bomb targets in allied countries. If you start with that, I am afraid we won't be able to support you in Iraq.
Bush: I suppose you are right. I am just so frustrated.....
Next thing that happens is you get a memo, it gets circulated, and suppressed...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"The letter was never meant for publication."
Then why did you post it?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
actually, new idea, you don't
.xxx match resolving to the same IP, is automatically blocked.
but, you write your netnanny software so that any domain sought, which also has a
so if I (being 12) type in muffdiver.com then if muffdiver.com and muffdiver.com.xxx are the same host, my restricted computer echos 199.181.132.250 or the like.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
First of all, you can't possibly FORCE smut vendors to use .xxx -- first, it's impossible, and second, it goes against the nature of the Internet. Secondly, please remember that the First Amendment you refer to is an AMERICAN constitutional amendment.
.xxx tld and that now you are facing jail time. Imagine if you go to somewhere like Saudi Arabia and find that you are subjected to jail and torture because your sexy swimwear company was supposed to be using a .tld according to their laws.
.xxx domain and it would be meaningless.
.xxx -- such enforced censorship is ineffective and largely a waste of time.
.xxx tld but I have since changed my position.
Why is this impossile. If someone is threatened with fines or jail time for operating a pornographic business on a different tld, then the mechanism isn't important, that person is forced.
Secondly, the First Amendment only protects you as long as you don't travel outside the US. Imagine the unpleasent surprise when going to a conservative Catholic country and finding out that your contraceptive device company was required by them to use a
Cool. Now everything would use a
Remember, we aren't talking about FORCING people to move over to
Not yet anyway. I heard an interview with someone from ICANN on NPR a few months back where he said it would be naive to assume that such regulations would not be on their way if this was passed.
I used to be in favor of the
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This alleged plan to bomb Al Jazeera was in 2004. By that time, Americans had moved everything into Iraq and Saddam's palaces and American bases in Iraq. Qatar was done with.
However, I think that it's a huge jump from "you can say whatever you want, you just can't say it wherever you want" to "there's no free speech in America" as is so often claimed here.
Hmm, call me naive, but I would think that "free speech" is an all-or-nothing concept: It's either available everywhere, universally and without restriction, or it simply isn't "free speech."
I mean, consider the often used correlation between "free software" and "free speech." If there are restrictions on the software that only allow it to be "free" in certain circumstances (e.g. only if it's being used by a non-profit organization), is it still "free software?" What would rms say?
My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that the US pushes the concept of "free speech" a hell of a lot more then it actually practices it.
7 November 2005
....
To:
The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, London
Dear Foreign Secretary,
How are you gentlemen !!
All your base are belong to us.
You are on the way to destruction.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Sincerely,
Carlos M. Guiterrez Secretary of Commerce
Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State
This guy is not being repressed, unless it is in a monty python sense.
He is certainly not being restrained. Sounds more like whining to me.
the "NATO BS" saying it is bad to slaughter an ethnic group in your country because you don't like them?
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Well, duh.
Yes, I do know who she is, and that she's not "some welfare black chick". However, the root DNS servers are an alien concept to most web developers (trust me; I've had to explain it god knows how many times to my colleagues who should know better), let alone a high-ranking cabinet member who has a million other things to worry about. Intelligence is no guarantee of breadth of knowledge, especially anything as specific as this.
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
Well, I was going to do the fairly obvious reply, but it looks like about a dozen others beat me to it.
One last one: TV - Nipkow, Rosing, Baird... German, Russian and Scots. Do you propose handing control of all worldwide TV networks to these nations? No...?
The parent poster may want to read this for further debating hints.
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
This is not hard language. This is a position paper. There is nothing in this document that outlines any position that was not known before the meeting.
Their website has extensive news in english as well as arabic. I was there quite a bit durring the first part of the war. Their version of the news seemed very slanted to what their intended audiance wanted to hear, which was no real surprise. If your a neo-con right-wing american slashdoter like me and want to get a handle on what stokes the fires of arabic-muslim passion, there is no better place; if your looking for objective coverage, stay away from Al-Jazeera, Fox CNN ect. and try BBC world news instead.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Sir Humphrey Applebey. The total lack of readability, combined with the total demand for power proves it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There are some pretty substantial, um, language issues with this letter. It doesn't seem likely to me. There are sentences without a clear subject or verb, and ones with a subject and a verb have substantial agreement issues. There are still enough native english speakers at the U.S. state department that I doubt anything this sloppily written would actually get distributed.
Parts of the letter are also explaining things that the recipient already knows -- in particular, why would you need to tell Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that the U.K. currently has the presidency of the European Union? He of all people already know that. On the other hand, it adds context that third parties (like most Register readers) might not have.
I'm pretty sure whomever wrote this letter intended it to be published. I am pretty doubtful those parties collect a paycheck from the United States government.
the "NATO BS" saying it is bad to slaughter an ethnic group in your country because you don't like them?
Well, the concern was obviously that you had someone like Milosevic using this sort of thing to get his political message across.
The actual Kosovo issues get far more murkey than the normal line that is taken. I don't doubt that Milosevic and others are guilty of serious war crimes both in Kosovo and elsewhere, but given how we didn't get heavily involved in Bosnia really at all (not nearly to the same extent we did in Kosovo), or other breakaway republics, I don't actually understand why the TV station was targetted. In other words I don't understand why it was a valid military target. Or for that matter the Chinese Embassy.
Furthermore, unlike Bosnia, Kosovo was considered to be a region of Serbia. I.e. we had far better justification to get involved in Bosnia than in Kosovo.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
> Hmm, call me naive, but I would think that "free speech" is an all-or-nothing concept: It's either available everywhere, universally and without restriction, or it simply isn't "free speech."
So what's your position on the whole "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre issue?
> If there are restrictions on the software that only allow it to be "free" in certain circumstances...
You mean restrictions like "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty?" Absolute freedom from restrictions means that any for-profit company could do whatever they wanted with any open-source software and no one could say the first thing about it.
> My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that the US pushes the concept of "free speech" a hell of a lot more then it actually practices it.
And my personal opinion is that if the government keeps you from saying something, it's almost 99% certain that you can walk two blocks and say it all you want. In all the examples given, not once were people kept from expressing their opinions unless they did it while lying on the sidewalk and obstructing traffic.
Shall we agree to respectfully disagree?
It can be simpler than that.
Simply force every website that has XXX material on it to register an additional
Filtering then becomes simple: Take IP address, do reverse domain matching on it through
-Adam
Blair: Okay, I have a great idea lets let these guys finish up the documentation and I'll take you out to our Favourite Bar
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
I hope not. Although maybe it's an evil genius sort of intelligence. Every time she speaks you can hear the nukes falling in her vision of a "free" world.
So, intelligent or not, I reckon she's the most dangerous woman of any colour anywhere. Unelected leaders preaching about democracy, eh? Dontcha just love it?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Wrong. There's a law prohibiting displaying signs and symbols from the nazi regime in public. What you want to say *about* that is totally up to you as long as you don't attempt to rewrite history by denying the holocaust or crazy stuff like that. I know lots of americans are actually buying into this crap about being the foremost free country in the world but if you'd bother to look over your borders for once and get up to speed on your own policies you'd see there's very little difference between the US and western/northern Europe. Making statements like that might work well in the US but will seriously undermine your credibility once you cross the border into Europe. I think the only country that ever came close to self-congratulating propaganda the US is spewing over it's citizens is probably nazi-germany. It's all good until you start believing it yourself, but hey whatever gives you that warm feeling inside dude.
Wrong again. Where do you people get this bullshit? Maybe you should start considering the source. A school is not the place to show off symbols of your favorite deity or religion, neither are any government buildings or facilities if you work there (state is not supposed to endorse or display *ANY* religious symbols). What you do in your own time, outside school, outside government buildings is your business. Saying that France is ordering muslims or anyone else to change their religion is utter, utter insanity that can only be thought up by idiots with an agenda. Who makes this shit up? Tell me your reliable source and I'll show you a twit of the first order.
By the way, tell me, how long ago was it that Los Angeles was ablaze with riots itself? Did you suddenly forget about that or something, did that have nothing to do with minorities? Is your memory as long as the 8 o'clock news? Do they even cover news outside your own borders?
Read a book, get an education, do something instead of being the mindless drone you are portraying now.
The americans inventet the internet, so they should controll all of it.
The germans inventet cars, so they should controll all of them.
The chinese inventet fireworks, so they should controll all of it.
The europeans inventet guns, so they should controll all of them.
This is a somewhat strange example, but my point is that invention and funding at early stages are not good reasons for keeping controll at later stages. The net is mostly private now, and an extremely important part of many countries' infrastructure and economy. I'd am an european, and dosn't really need/want controll. But I'd want a backupsystem of root-servers which is elsewhere than in the USA. So that no "mad" american politician can mess up, or turn off, parts of the internet. It's like an analogy to the GPS-system, where the europeans in the end built their own net.
You need us, believe it or not
Bullsh*t. Nobody needs anybody. It's a TCP/IP network, stupido. It's built on a mutual unwritten agreement and understanding that the benefits of hooking up everybody to the same net outweigh the downsides.
I wish the U.S. would just shut off all outbound and inbound routing for just a single day.
I wish they would too. Sad thing is they won't. This whole "Internet Gouvernance" Excitement thing is a bunch of rubbish. It's the corporations that decide it the Inet stays the Inet or if it doesn't. No gouverment whatsoever has a saying in this. Rice and her european adversaries are basically bullshitting themselves if they believe they'd have any say in this. The Inet is some stupid TCP/IP over copper, glass and radiowave, and if the US would clamp off it's routers it would take like a dozen days for other parts of the world to say "Oh what the hell, we'll start routing our own stuff".
It's basically a good idea to keep the control with the ICAN, because everybody knows if they screw up beyond just some ego-quabiling there will be an alternative popping up overnight. Aside from other things the 'gouvernance' of the Inet is a thing that actually has to let freedom reign if it ought to stay in place. A nice execise if you ask me.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Why do I get the impression US politicians are brushing the dust off their hands and saying:
"Well, that's over."
Meanwhile...
A great deal of the research into the various components of the Internet was done by U.S. Universities, as often as not with grants provided by private industry. If you think that all research is paid for by government money, you have no idea of how the U.S. works.
The poster said that this is a "pretty stern" letter? Did he even RTFL? Seems downright flowery compared to his brief description. Like Condi was coming on to the guy.
After reading it... I am left wondering what evidacne do we have that this is the real letter. I had been hoping for a .jpg of the letter. Of course this would not be the first letter faked.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
o if I (being 12) type in muffdiver.com then if muffdiver.com and muffdiver.com.xxx are the same host, my restricted computer echos 199.181.132.250 or the like.
What's 199.181.132.250? I hope that isn't on your internal network. Anyway, that'd be legal, but somewhat impractical, as you can block any site by registering site.xxx. Also, what motivation does muffdiver have for registering a .xxx?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
So what's your position on the whole "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre issue?
That would depend on if there actually was a fire or not. In any case, "free speech" does not mean "freedom from individual responsibility." Just because one is perfecly free to shout "FIRE!" does not mean one should.
Let me put it another way: I would never shout "FIRE!" in a theater unless there actually was a fire, even if there was no fear of punishment or recrimination. That's personal responsibility, and without it any attempt to create a free, liberal and democratic society is just a complete waste of time.
Absolute freedom from restrictions means that any for-profit company could do whatever they wanted with any open-source software and no one could say the first thing about it.
Yes, that's because corperations do not practice individual nor personal responsibility. If they did, there would be no need for such a clause. Once again, if it was my for-profit company, I would give back at least as much as I took (more in fact), regardless of the licence conditions, simply because I realise that the free software system only works if everybody excercises personal responsibility.
Shall we agree to respectfully disagree?
Of course! That's what free speech is all about :-)
Maybe because we invented the damn thing!
Please do not argue for control based on having invented the damn thing. Or perhaps you should stop using the inventions of other countries?
What happenned is that as well as inventing it, we *built* the internet. Not all of it, but most of it. The others want to play with our internet and agree to play by our rules -- more or less. You can bulid your own internet (that's called an intranet, but it's the same thing). If they get pissed off they're perfectly free to get their own root servers.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
There are studies based on identical twins who grew up separately, that quite conclusively show that a good portion of intelligence is genetic. Why is it suddenly a problem to even think that someone who's genes come from a a country that has been "intellectual" for a few hundred years be more "intellectual" than someone from, say, Africa? Is it also flamebait to say black people play hide-and-seek in the dark better?
Although I do think that the poster is wrong about weight not affecting intelligence. The brain consumes a lot of resources, and being physically fit does affect your intelligence to some extent.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Parse this: "...The four principles the United States issues on June 30, 2005, reinforce the continuing U.S. commitment..." As Truman Capote would say, "Issued! Isshoo-DUH! Why can't you make your past tenses match your obvious temporal syntax?" And what's with the superfluous comma? Unless standards have seriously fallen since 1975 (the last time I looked), this is not a State Department document. It might be a sloppy hand-typed amateur copy.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
As much as I think ICANN is a bunch of morons (.museum? gimmie a break!), I am sure things would only be worse if the UN were to gain control of the root servers.
As far as IP space goes, there are lies and liars everywhere. There's quite enough IPv4 space, if it were used correctly. Much of those problem depends on updating the infrastructure. Lots of stuff can break if you start changing netmasks, etc.
One of the really big problems is the size of the route tables when you run BGP4. Cisco router memory is expensive, and each additional route added to the BGP4 table takes up a few more bytes in (practically) all the BGP4 routers around the world. Yet, some organizations are still advertising several netblocks when they could do with one larger netblock. Why? Because there's no policy on aggregating legacy and therefore 'grandfathered' IP space - if an organization gets IP space under ARIN policy, they are forever subject to ARIN fees and policies. If the organization keeps its legacy IP space, no fees are incurred.
What needs to happen is a change in policy so that IP space can be aggregated without penalty. Fees should be charged for new IP space allocations only.
Then, I would aggregate my IP space and save some route memory for everyone.
False, I'm afraid. That's Doha, Kuwait.
Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
From the link:
How amusing. Note that that's a "warehouse complex", not an HQ.
In Qatar (ok, I'll drop the "u") we find:
Ok, so the op wasn't run from Doha, but from 35 km away.
(Some other poster has a more correct point, by 2004 Al-Udeid was no longer as important, although "Qatar was done with" is somewhat of an exageration).
Watch this Heartland Institute video
> I like to think of governments as particularly firmly established and powerful insurance companies.
Interesting, but fundamentally flawed.
That comparison misses the key notion of intent---the stated intent of an insurance company is to maximize profit; the stated intent of a government is to serve the people. If you don't believe that key ideological difference radically changes the functioning of the body, I would humbly suggest you haven't thought about it long enough.
(Now, that being said, one could argue the stated intent of a government is different from its actual intent. That is quite possible; however, with periodic elections and public oversight, I would argue that governments will tend to shift back towards their stated intentions over time.
I would guess he stands in the "control of the internet by any single body is bad" camp, that being (a) the obvious one, and (b) an obvious way to reconcile the two articles.
Really, you seem to be desperately reaching for something to complain about---"bad when they do it" and "bad when we do it" does not necessarily mean "hypocritical"; sometimes it just means "it's bad for anyone to do it".
Actually, you could only block a site if you were co-located with it, since they have to resolve to the same IP. It could still be abused though. Registering with a .xxx could be a good pr move, as they can always say "It's trivial to block us if you don't want your kids viewing this."
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
I don't know what Al-Jazeera is, as I don't read arabic, ...
Check out english.aljazeera.com and judge for yourself. Here in the US, just aljazeera.com gets you the English page, but in other countries, you might need the "english." part.
Their English page is more oriented to international news than their arabic pages, of course. So you won't get much of the local crime/scandal/celebrity news. But the English pages will give you a pretty good idea of what they consider of interest to "international" readers.
Their English site has been online for some years. At first, there was a lot of trouble with it, as various agencies tried hard to keep them off the Net. But this failed, of course, and they now have a number of mirrors scattered around the world, so you can read them as easily as you can any other big news agency.
They're really just another major news agency, with an emphasis on the Middle East. They are well worth reading, for a view of events that's often somewhat different that what you get from American or European sources. They include editorials and opinion pieces, of course, and those are often especially interesting for Western readers. There are also several south Asian news sources that will give you yet another viewpoint.
Rather than their biases, the most annoying thing about them is their "active" web pages. On my 1 GHz Powerbook, firefox soaks up 10% to 15% of the cpu when the main aljazeera.com page is displayed. If you're using your cpu for anything else, you might want to turn off JS and other scripting. This won't cut out any of the articles; it'll just kill the cute moving banners and such.
I'm also a bit annoyed that they don't include their logo on their English pages. It's just their name, but it's a well-done example of traditional Arabic calligraphy. Too bad they don't show it on their main English page.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Actually, you could only block a site if you were co-located with it, since they have to resolve to the same IP.
Assuming your simplified model of websites, you can still point your domain at someone else's site. you don't need to own the ip.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Why should one believe the English site and the Arabic site say the same thing? Even true for my local newspaper just translating from print to on-line results in drastic changes. Now if they had some compelling *reason* to make changes...
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Why should one believe the English site and the Arabic site say the same thing?
;-)
Well, my method is to ask my wife, but that might not work for you.
Actually, she's not that fluent; she's using aljazeera.com and a few other Arabic sites to improve her Arabic. She decided a couple of years ago that she should get serious about this, because there are important things happening in the Middle East and lots of people are lying to us about them. She opens adjacent English and Arabic windows, finds the same articles in each, and goes through them. She says it works pretty well, because the Arabic articles are usually a fairly direct translation of the Arabic. Sometimes they're a bit abbreviated. And, of course, there are a fair number of articles that don't show up in English, mostly articles of only local interest.
At first, it was pretty obvious that many of aljazeera's translations were done by people with somewhat limited English. This has changed with time, and they now have a lot of writers who are very fluent in English. But still, you'll spot occasional awkward translations.
The aljazeera folks seem to be fairly serious in their intent to present Arabic attitudes to the West, rather than to propagandize. The difference can sometimes be subtle, but it's there. They're not so much saying "You should believe this" as "People are saying this and you should know". Like a lot of news people, they don't believe a lot of the stuff they report, either. But they report it because they consider it something that others should know about.
The same situation has long existed with Voice of America. VOA has an explicit charter to present the US government's views to the world. They are pretty good at subtly making clear when they're reporting straight facts and when they're reporting some US official's spin on those facts. People all over the world understand this, and listen to VOA for both news and US government attitudes. Even when those officials are lying, what they're saying can be important.
You should take the same cynical approach to aljazeera. They're not actually government funded like VOA, but they are consciously trying to do the same sort of thing. "This happened today; here's what so-and-so said about it." Read and make up your own mind who's lying to you.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I'm sorry but the laws concerning the holocaust are non-issues, if thats all you have to point out, have fun being a stooge.
You pretend knowing how some state-funded european media works, thats surprising because every country has their own usually rather complex system. I'm not sure what to say since your suppositions are rather far out there. Saying it "tends" to drive discussion *and* "quite common" just leaves me to conclude you know jack shit about the subject and heard it from someone who didn't do more then glance at it themselves either.
Good luck in la-la land!
Check out this documentary, in which Al-Jazeera compares favorably as less biased than Foxnews. Interesting interviews with our military spokespeople, too.
Control Room
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Good point. I for some reason hadn't considered purchasing a name and pointing it an an IP I didn't have access to.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari