Slashdot Mirror


The Most Important Meeting You've Never Heard of

An anonymous reader writes "In December the nations of the world will gather in Dubai for the UN-convened World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT – pronounced 'wicket'). The topic of the meeting is nothing less than the regulation of the Internet. Under the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union the governments of the world will review the international treaty known as the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR). The last review of the ITR was in 1988 when the Internet was just aborning. The remarkable and reshaping growth of the Internet provides the excuse for the new review. What's really afoot, however, is an effort by some nations to rebalance the Internet in their favor by reinstituting telecom regulatory concepts from the last century." At least it's being held in a hotbed of unfettered online communication.

171 comments

  1. Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All I ever read about is slavery. Is Dubai just a metaphor for "the rich can control everybody else" or is it a real country?

    1. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "A real country"? You mean like for example.. the US? The rich certainly don't control people there!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      All I ever read about is slavery. Is Dubai just a metaphor for "the rich can control everybody else" or is it a real country?

      Dubai is an example of the glorious harmony between (middle) east and west! A city that wraps the middle east's robust traditions of rule of law and enlightenment liberalism and the west's values of sober financial honesty in the civic-planning expertise of Vegas developers on PCP... Truly, an example for us all.

    3. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well it isn't a country so guess it's the other thing.

    4. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dubai is an artificially constructed where no city naturally arise. The entirety of Dubai is a playground for the ultra-wealthy and infamous. Think of it as the headquarters of The New World Order.

    5. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not so sure they're an example for everyone: China arguably does even better by combining the political freedoms enjoyed by northeastern Europeans for decades, the environmental and labor laws found in many nations in southeast Asia, and the economic opportunities common to Central America.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoosh...!

    7. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not a whoosh: I'm saying that Chinese people have the political freedoms of the Soviets, the environmental protections of India (take a look at the Ganges), and the economic options of sweatshop labor vs subsistence farming.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by gsgriffin · · Score: 1, Troll

      I hope there is a repost of this after the conference and with accurate, actual agreements and understandings that come out of this meeting. It has been vogue to take any international meeting and assume that the US is trying to get rich off the poor and silence the world and and control everyone. If you lived here, you'd see how wrong you are, but from where you sit, I can understand how you and your friends bantering over a beer might come to that conclusion. There always has to been someone on top that is the target and the concluded cause of all your problems.

      --
      jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
    9. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Reverse whoosh!

    10. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly I can't stand people who go out of their way to feel like a victim. The rich don't control people in the US. If you feel differently, your victimization is in your head.

    11. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Weird - I am in the US, and feel we ARE trying to control the internet and everything on it, like forcing US copyright law on the world, as in SOPA/PIPA and ACTA, insisting on tax breaks for the rich (which means more taxes for the poor and middle class), attempts at a flat tax to abolish the IRS (all of which are a tax increase for the poor/middle class), etc. Other laws like COPA, and the DMCA attempt to dictate world internet policy. The FCC chairman seems to want all internet to be metered and charged like long distance calls and billed by usage (and wow - talk about regressive... I'm less at odds with usage billing if it is reasonable, but look at what Verizon Wireless and AT&T is charging for tiny amounts of data and I'm absolutely offended).

    12. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      No, the rich only control the politicians who make laws that control the people. Or are you actually claiming special interest groups and lobbyists don't have any sway in the law making process?

      Guess what? Not everyone who feels like this is a victim, and the rich do not control every aspect of this country. The truth is somewhere in the middle of the two. There are just way to many people lined up at either end of the argument. It isn't as black and white as most people would like to make it seem.

      Also telling everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion that their feelings are "all in their head" is a good way to have people tune out from everything else you are saying.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    13. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Dubai is not a real country just a state in the Emirates.

    14. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      "Glorious Harmony" sounds like the name of the cult that dressed them selves up in robes lay down and poisoned themselves because they new the Alien ship was coming to snatch them away to heaven.

    15. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by gsgriffin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You're focusing on only what you want to hear. In the US, you can see and do a lot on the Internet. They are not trying to control 'everything on it'. You can watch your porn, put up plans to make a bomb and kill people, tell nasty lies about anyone you want. You can't steal something that someone else has created.

      Also go do your research rather than just listening to your political party of choice. About 97% of all of the taxes in our country are paid for by about 5% of the wealthy people in this country. In other words, we get our highways, police, national parks, etc...because the wealthy have paid their taxes. Take away the wealthy in our country and your taxes will double overnight. I for one am not wealthy, but I'm grateful to those who are and are paying taxes. BTW...the people that get the most back from the government are those that pay nothing. I'm shocked why they feel they should contribute absolutely nothing. Try living in another country...like India or anywhere in Africa. Even if you live at $2/day, you have to pay huge school fees and buy uniforms for your children if you want them to simply go to school. Can't afford it, they don't get an education. It appears you are concerned about the "poor" in America, but statistically, check out a global wealth calculator...several on the web...those living on welfare in the US are still in the top 20% of wage earner in the world for doing nothing. Not a bad gig. Don't like it, try living in another country and doing nothing and see what it gets you.

      The cell phone providers are not the internet. They are your ISP. They can charge what you are willing to pay. If nobody is willing to pay it, they will go to some other provider. The try to limit the traffic...not control it. They want to earn money. So does any business.

      Copyrights used to be easier because it was all physical or intellectual. Now the Internet has allowed people to copy what they didn't create for free and pass it around for others to have for free. Whatever movies you like or computers games or TV shows you may like, do you think they would exist if there was no protection at all and everyone could copy and pass them around for free? Really? The reason they can still be in business is because our government is trying so hard to protect and make it illegal to takes what someone has created and pass it around for free. If the US didn't pay to go to the movies, buy DVD, and rent the movies, I'd have a hard time believing that anyone in Hollywood would be willing to put up $100M to make a great movie. They'd loose all their money.

      Go ahead and explain to us how and why anything would be developed (pharma, entertainment, software) if nobody is willing to pay for it and just waits to get it for free. I'd love to know how that system works?

      --
      jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
    16. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have nukes.

    17. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by acheong87 · · Score: 1

      Whoosh...!

      Whoosh...!

    18. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by BotnetZombie · · Score: 1

      About 97% of all of the taxes in our country are paid for by about 5% of the wealthy people in this country.

      I don't believe you. Where is your proof of that? And don't tell me to google it, you are asserting something that sounds like a fantasy.

    19. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Hadur · · Score: 2

      I think you have some facts wrong. 97% of the taxes in the US are paid by the top _50%_ of the people in the country. Still a lot, but nothing like what you were saying. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

    20. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I ever read about is slavery. Is Dubai just a metaphor for "the rich can control everybody else" or is it a real country?

      Dubai is not a county, it is a city in a country. It is not even the capital.

    21. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole post is garbage. You really need to do a little research off of foxnews.com

    22. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to some website I randomly googled, the top 5% of people pay ~60% of the income tax. 50% of people pay 97% of the income tax.

      That's not counting sales taxes and property taxes, which are disproportionately paid by less wealthy people, and corporate taxes, which essentially are paid by shareholders which tend to be wealthier people.

      http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

    23. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by celle · · Score: 1

      "Go ahead and explain to us how and why anything would be developed (pharma, entertainment, software) if nobody is willing to pay for it and just waits to get it for free. I'd love to know how that system works?"

          Funny we actually had all that before patents and copyrights. They were called doctors, art, math and made money just fine.

      " If the US didn't pay to go to the movies, buy DVD, and rent the movies, I'd have a hard time believing that anyone in Hollywood would be willing to put up $100M to make a great movie. They'd loose all their money."

            Didn't stop those movie companies from moving to the west coast to avoid fees on using the camera and tech developed by edison. Besides it's not "their" money, it comes from us. Maybe you should study your history a little more.

      "The cell phone providers are not the internet."

          Yes they are as they are a part of it(backbones, etc) and and directly control their own infrastructure as isp and owner. They are also given monopoly power over various areas.

      "About 97% of all of the taxes in our country are paid for by about 5% of the wealthy people in this country. "

          And the wealthy pay as little as they can get away with too. Your numbers have only been true the last couple of decades, before there was a lot more balance and more legal protection for the public from the current nightmare. The wealthy own more so they should pay but unfortunately not the same per capita as the rest of us. Lets not forget how many of them got wealthy in the first place. Which was largely on the public's dime in a country with a publicly provided stable business friendly environment: tax system(bailouts, tax breaks), government support(laws, military, education, research), infrastructure (roads, rails, air, ships and regulations to keep them stable), and culture (capitalism is king). Let's not forget plenty of brain-washed docile slaves(conservatives). The wealthy don't get wealthy on their own, that value had to come from those who did the work. The current system of keeping the profits and socializing the losses for those in private business has got to go after all business is risk stand up for yourself and stop taking handouts and take you licks when you lose.

      Again study your history because you obviously haven't.

    24. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hsoohw?

    25. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I don't live in the US. I don't feel victimised as I have a decent job and don't really care much about a lot of the political bullshit in the world, but I'm not blind either. As Mister Whirly pointed out, the rich set policy, so historically things gradually head in their direction until everything breaks down and there is revolution.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    26. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Funny we actually had all that before patents and copyrights. They were called doctors, art, math and made money just fine.

      Before patents and copyrights, the system was called "patronage". You found a wealthy person who liked your art or supported the sciences (or did science himself) and he paid for it. And he got the benefits. That sculpture you made for him wasn't easily copied and sold in enough copies to make the money back. It went into your patron's house or garden, or he loaned it to a museum and got the prestige and respect for supporting it. A well stocked library was the sign of wealth and accomplishment, because those were the people who could afford the books.

      And the wealthy pay as little as they can get away with too.

      Of course they do. So do you. Or do you simply refuse to take every deduction that you are allowed because you feel some greater good in handing your money over to the government to spend for you?

      The wealthy own more so they should pay ...

      Difference between weath and income. Tax the rich until they aren't anymore, they deserve it, those rat bastards! Then we'll all be rich ... no, we'll all be poor together. Dog in the manger.

    27. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

      As of 2007, the top 10% of the nation possessed roughly 97% of the income while only paying about 55% in taxes. The top 1% possessed 46% of the nations wealth. If the top 10% paid the 97% of the taxes like you say they did, the taxes wouldn't be an issue (How they spent the taxes still would be though), but they aren't.

      Sorry but the wealthy of the nation have the rest of us dragging their dead weight across the finish line come tax time which is a great deal of the problems we are having. Sorry man, but you been drinking the wrong koolaid if you believe that crap. Think it is time you found an actual news source for your information and not just a propaganda machine.

    28. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by KhabaLox · · Score: 4, Informative

      97% of the taxes in the US are paid by the top _50%_ of the people in the country.

      97% of the income tax. There are a lot of other taxes. For example, payroll taxes, which amount to about 7.5% of an employees first $105k in income, (so it's actually a regressive tax. That is paid by every employed person, regardless of income. Sales tax is another one not included.

      And then, if you want to talk about the larger issue of funding the government, there are loads of fees (nearly) everyone pays, from car registrations, to fees on your telephone bill, etc. To mention only the income tax as OP did, is disingenuous.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    29. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by znrt · · Score: 0

      About 97% of all of the taxes in our country are paid for by about 5% of the wealthy people in this country

      [citation not needed [to avoid unnecesary embarrasment [since you declare yourself already hopeless]]]

    30. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rich DO control people in the United States, and shutting the door on any opposing views is just cowardice-driven thought. The rich fuel the companies that lobby the politicians and lawmakers that set policy and law within the country. I'm probably being trolled, but I really don't care.

    31. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, an industrial revolution economy. Political freedom is the problem of these three since having it leads to fixing the others over time.

    32. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I ever read about is slavery. Is Dubai just a metaphor for "the rich can control everybody else" or is it a real country?

      Dubai is a city if you must know.

    33. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by chinmoykanjilal · · Score: 1

      Excuse me. I am from India, and in India, people who live on $2 a day send their children to government schools, which are funded and run by the Government. Of course the quality of education is not at par with other privately run schools which attract better instructors, but you get the point. Additionally, there are various NGOs that patronize schools like these, and provide free food, clothing and books for children. Do you know which countries in this region are in a worse condition than India? Bangladesh is, Pakistan is. Bangladesh is to us what Mexico is to you. Another thing. ISPs everywhere are heavily regulated and controlled by the government, and they DO try to control the traffic by limiting access to websites as and when the Government directs them to. Perhaps you have never heard of a country called China.

    34. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      !...hsoohW

    35. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pharma research should be that, government funded, open patent-free research. That way the pharma industry doesn't just work towards very expensive medicines. Instead the government gives goals and they get paid for that. This would result in much cheaper medicine compared to the current situation.

    36. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the core assumptions you use in order to make your argument is wrong, and also literally the same assumption inherent in Mitt Romney's 47% remark. You conflate the small portion of America's population who commit welfare or UI fraud, i.e. those people who are earning money and "doing nothing, " with the portion of the population who pays no income taxes, when in reality this population is just the people who, after accounting for extenuating circumstances, don't make enough money to be able to pay income taxes and still be able to keep up with the cost of living.

      It is an unfortunate side effect of basing your opinions on ill-researched and inconsistent assumptions that you appear like an idiot to the people actually concerned with addressing problems like the tax code or poverty, your full-throated defense of the corporate capitalist model notwithstanding.

    37. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense, but I don't want my country to look anything like India. I have higher standards than that for little things like plumbing, nevermind corruption levels.

    38. Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, even if what he was saying was true (which it is not), he would be describing a reservation system not unlike what was provided for native Americans (at least in Canada). In return for paying no taxes and having a bunch of services provided for you, you will shut up, take what you get and do what you are told.

      Not exactly the ideal of a free and open society with a strong middle class and vibrant civil society.

  2. BUY YOUR TINFOIL NOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Supplies will be limited in December.

  3. While there's ICANN... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    there's no free internet...

  4. I've never been to Dubai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I hear it is nice. Pretty expensive too. Glad that my tax money is being spent on sending government employees to such an out-of-the-way place. After all, if they don't deserve it, who does?

    1. Re:I've never been to Dubai by Copley · · Score: 4, Informative

      Out of the way for who?! The "nations of the world" are attending, not just the US [I'm guess you're from the US with your rather parochial ways]. Dubai seems pretty central to me.

      --
      I am bald
    2. Re:I've never been to Dubai by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Glad that my tax money is being spent on sending government employees to such an out-of-the-way place.

      Your gasoline money paid for the place so what's a few airplane tickets?

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:I've never been to Dubai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not a map weighted by GDP? Why not a map weighted by number of internet users? Why not a map weighted by bytes per capita? Why not a location that reduces the total amount of travel? I'll bet you're from somewhere that doesn't give a shit about carbon footprint. But since this is a Telecommunications Conference, why don't they try teleconferencing?

    4. Re:I've never been to Dubai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK - who modded parent *informative 4*? Its supposed to be *insightful 5*.
      Or is the fact that the world doesn't have a center truly new information for most here?

  5. I've been told to worry more about WPTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we survive WCIT, we then have WPTF in 2013
    (http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/default.aspx)

    The good folks at ISOC (http://www.internetsociety.org/) along with other influential policy people in the industry are working hard on both of these.

    1. Re:I've been told to worry more about WPTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTPF even. WTF indeed :)

    2. Re:I've been told to worry more about WPTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you so much for defining those meaningless acronyms...

  6. it became what it is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The internet became what it is and revolutionized human communication precisely because it was not regulated. It was an anarchy, and should remain one.

    1. Re:it became what it is.... by jythie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Problem is.. it is not one and never has been. What needs to be figured out over the coming decades is, will the US unilaterally regulate it, or will an international organization do so. Neither is a particularly good option, but I doubt we will have much other choice.

    2. Re:it became what it is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer to this is easy The United States invented it and we should continue to regulate it period! Otherwise there will be a split in the web and it would no longer be called the World Wide Web because we would still keep our part of the internet free, obviously, and other countries that don't like that would either have to adopt a China style "great fire wall" or divide the internet into pieces depending on what the other countries want their citizens to have access to.

    3. Re:it became what it is.... by swalve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ridiculous. The content wasn't regulated, but the nuts and bolts are. Things like TCP/IP and routers and shit. You are confusing the roads for the route.

    4. Re:it became what it is.... by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was an anarchy

      ... created by those well-known anarchists at the US Department of Defense, with funding and public support from that well-known anarchist Al Gore.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:it became what it is.... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about the US regulate the servers and routers that are in the US, and other countries regulate those in them?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:it became what it is.... by JWW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If ever there needed to be proof the legislators NEVER think of unintended consequences of the laws/programs they create, the Internet is it.

      There is NO WAY IN HELL that if they had known what the Internet would become that they would have passed the legislation and funded the programs that spawned it in the way that they did. They would have ensured the regulatory capture first, which would have saved them all this hassle of a rear guard action of trying to achieve it now.

      The Internet's success was probably the most serendipitous accident in human history. Had the lawmakers actually really known exactly what they were doing, I am certain they would not have done it.

      Please note that I am not at all inferring that the engineers and technical experts working at DARPA at the time didn't know exactly what THEY were doing...

    7. Re:it became what it is.... by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Neither is really an option. It's not like either the US or the UN could convince China not to censor their network. Tyrannies will always control their national subnets, the only difference is that they now also want control over the Internet of everyone else.

    8. Re:it became what it is.... by jythie · · Score: 2

      The irony, of course, being that the 'world wide web' was invented by people at CERN, which is swiss/french.... so under that logic the EU should regulate the web and the US would regulate routing, I guess.

    9. Re:it became what it is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony, of course, being that the 'world wide web' was invented by people at CERN, which is swiss/french.... so under that logic the EU should regulate the web and the US would regulate routing, I guess.

      I thought Al Gore invented the internet...

    10. Re:it became what it is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The internet became what it is and revolutionized human communication..."

      "...created by"

      Shame on you for conflating the argument to suit your narrow prejudice.

    11. Re:it became what it is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      will the US unilaterally regulate it, or will an international organization do so. Neither is a particularly good option.

      The only bad thing about putting regulation in the hands of an internation organization is that it is not in the hands of the US. Which actually is not a bad thing, unless you are from the US. Why is it that the USAnians hate the UN so much?

    12. Re:it became what it is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [the internet] was an anarchy

      ... created by those well-known anarchists at the US Department of Defense, with funding and public support from that well-known anarchist Al Gore.

      Al Gore invented the internet?

    13. Re:it became what it is.... by sudden.zero · · Score: 1

      Actually you are highly mistaken Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks. But full credit goes to Xerox. It was at the Xerox PARC labs in Silicon Valley in the early 1970s that Ethernet was developed at to link different computer networks together. Researchers there also developed the first personal computer (the Xerox Alto).

    14. Re:it became what it is.... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Er... you must be atlking about the ICANN and the DNS hierarchy. The US have a control over that because until the wikileaks affair they have done a pretty good job at not meddling with it too much. But this is just a small comfort to have a centralized DNS register. If the US begin to "regulate" that too heavily, be sure that several other registers will appear. It will be a bit more messy but it will remain free.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    15. Re:it became what it is.... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      How about the US regulate the servers and routers that are in the US, and other countries regulate those in them?

      But then developing countries wouldn't get as much of the "revenue stream" (whatever that means) of the Internet, and that would be terrible.

    16. Re:it became what it is.... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      There is NO WAY IN HELL that if they had known what the Internet would become that they would have passed the legislation and funded the programs that spawned it in the way that they did.

      The Internet grew and blossomed in the way that it did for two reasons:
      1) It was under the radar of most world governments and regulatory agencies.
      2) It was not under the radar for the tech sector.

  7. aborning? by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 2

    I would have said, "in its formative years"..

    That said, thanks for the new word.. it's well cromulous.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    1. Re:aborning? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know, if you look a word up in the dictionary to see if it's real, slang, or newly coined you look a lot less stupid. Aborning is a real word, "cromulent" was invented in a cartoon making fun of making up words.

      Definition of ABORNING
      : while being born or produced
      Origin of ABORNING
      1a- + English dialect borning (birth)
      First Known Use: 1916
      2aborningadjective
      Definition of ABORNING
      : being born or produced
      Examples of ABORNING

      First Known Use of ABORNING
      1943
      Related to ABORNING
      Synonyms: nascent, budding, inceptive, inchoate, incipient
      Antonyms: adult, full-blown, full-fledged, mature, ripe, ripened

    2. Re:aborning? by swalve · · Score: 2

      Regardless, it's a stupid word that seems to have been used simply because someone's thesaurus suggested it. It's one of those word-salad words you see in power supply reviews, used simply to adhere to the fake rule of not using the same word twice.

    3. Re:aborning? by Creepy · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have real words that aren't in common usage than ignorant mistake words that have come into common usage. My pet peeve is "baited breath"... drives me nuts every time I see it. Why the f**k would you bait your breath? Sadly, some dictionaries are even acknowledging it as a valid word (correct word is bated breath, where bated is the short form of abated, which means stopped).

    4. Re:aborning? by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It only seems stupid to you because it looks made up out of the word born.

      There's nothing stupid at all about dusting off a lesser known word and holding it up to see if it should regain some stature.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:aborning? by jrroche · · Score: 1

      You know, if you took a class on linguistics and learned that language changes naturally and can only really be described based on real-world usage, not prescribed according to a dictionary, you'd look a lot less stupid. "Aborning" has 116,000 results on google and the top results are dictionary definitions, suggesting it may as well be made up because absolutely no one ever uses it. "Cromulent", meanwhile, has 249,000 results -- though admittedly, the top results are also mostly definitions and origin explanations -- suggesting it is a word people actually use and/or give a damn about, which a dictionary writer would probably tell you gives it more validity as a real word.

    6. Re:aborning? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Indeed, language does change, as anyone who's ever seen Shakespeare or a King James Bible knows. Yet "hither" and "yon" are still words; just because they're little used doesn't take away their status as real words. Meanwhile, I've only seen "cromulent" used in its original meaning, which is making fun of newly coined words by coining a new word.

    7. Re:aborning? by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      Well is looks like it was made up of a form of the work born actually.

    8. Re:aborning? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It's one of those word-salad words you see in power supply reviews, used simply to adhere to the fake rule of not using the same word twice.

      Redundancy is boring, which is why that rule is there. Of course, research papers don't have that rule; I read one at work once where the word "enumerate" was used five times in the first paragraph while the word "count" wasn't in the paper a single time.

    9. Re:aborning? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      There's nothing stupid at all about dusting off a lesser known word and holding it up to see if it should regain some stature.

      You should generally write to the level of your audience. However, some people are just infatuated with their knowledge of vocabulary. In this case I would have said, "when the Internet was just beginning".

    10. Re:aborning? by swalve · · Score: 1

      Upon further review, I guess it's a matter of opinion whether or not it is a stupid word. But there can be no disagreement that the usage of it in that sentence was stupid and ignorant. It isn't a verb, for christ's sake.

    11. Re:aborning? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      But the entire point of language is to communicate your ideas in an understandable manner to whomever your audience is, not to one-up them because you know more obscure words than they do.

  8. Reading the draft treaty by jbolden · · Score: 4, Informative

    I read through the very early draft: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf

    It seems like the focus is mainly compensation structure and what obligations exist for telcos passing traffic through. Content provisions are light. For example

    Member States are encouraged:
    a) to adopt national legislation to act against spam;
    b) to cooperate to take actions to counter spam;
    c) to exchange information on national findings/actions to counter spam.

    This is a crucial treaty in the way the public water system is crucial to public welfare. Its existence is a matter of public interest, the details of implementation not so much. Most people want their messages to pass but don't really care how telcos pass expenses around.

    1. Re:Reading the draft treaty by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but it dovetails with 'how dare those dang foreigners interfere with the US!' narrative,. so it is getting lots of hyperbolic attention and fear that the US will be under UN control. Exceptional-ism is still a pretty strong meme in the US, and anytime a story comes out that someone other then the US might have power or that the US isn't a unilateral power that can do whatever it wants unquestioned, it gets whipped up into an expletive storm.

    2. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just posting to give your view my support. Sick of all the cock-faced nationalist wankers the US floods Slashdot with when it comes to stories like this.

      The fact that they still to this day claim that somehow the UNSC is relevant to the ITU, or the fact that Russia could somehow enforce global censorship even though this would require their dear USA to support it because the ITU works on consensus only, or the fact that they claim it's full of time/money wasting beauracrats when in fact staffed by the world's foremost telecomms academics and experts demonstrates that they don't actually know what the fuck they're on about even though they post this shit anyway.

      Still, good on you having the balls to point out the facts on this topic with your actual account, I long got sick of it. Stories about this topic almost always seem to be 100% FUD cooked up by the US authorities and/or it's nationalist fuckwads because they don't want to be able to give up their ability to censor international domains at will, whilst simultaneously using censorship as their go-to excuse as to why no one else should run the net in the most classically American hypocritical way possible.

    3. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what I love the most is that most US citizen's arguments related to censorship are only loosely related to real censorship issues, and more closely related to I DESERVE FREE FUCKING SOFTWARE.

    4. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The medium is the message: Governments and Industry are at the table and we aren't.

    5. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just mad because it conversations used to be Euro-centered, and now they're US-centered. Suck a dick.

    6. Re:Reading the draft treaty by jbolden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm American and yes treaties aren't popular here. Though in all fairness most Americans in almost all their practices live in a world where on most things the US congress is the final authority. There is no American version of Brussels. Further remember that 1/2 of Americans haven't been out of the country, for many Americans their primary view of foreign countries are the stories about how their family fled and images on news programs emphasizing how much the USA is hated globally. So a large percentage of American population are isolationist. I good deal of the US probably wouldn't mind a US internet, that is loosely connected to other nation's networks; like the telephone system rather than a genuinely global system. Which isn't hypocrisy but rather a deeper desire to move away from empire.

      That being said, we also do have foreign policy hawks and then business interests that like US domination rather than US participation.

    7. Re:Reading the draft treaty by jbolden · · Score: 0

      because they don't want to be able to give up their ability to censor international domains at will,whilst simultaneously using censorship as their go-to excuse as to why no one else should run the net

      When has the USA ever censored international domains? We have enough real problems in the world let's not make up fake ones to fight about. The USA has a several hundred year strong history of light censorship, especially political censorship an excellent track record. If I had to trust any single entity not to censor the US government is a good choice.

      There is nothing hypocritical about having them play that role. Anymore than there would be in choosing the German government to conduct accounting audits all over the planet.

    8. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ICE domain seizures and the illegal actions taken against megaupload.

      I fear the UN more than the US when it comes to censorship, but let's not try to pretend the US believes in free speech when it threatens the powerful.

    9. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Jiro · · Score: 1

      You just contradicted yourself. You said that 1) Russia cannot enforce global censorship because it would require that the US cooperate in doing so, and 2) the US wants to be able to censor international domains at will.

      2 shows that 1 is possible.

    10. Re:Reading the draft treaty by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The Nation has been publishing continuously since 1865.
      Labor newspapers that had existed for a century only closed in the last few decades.
      Books of all sorts are published freely.
      The internet allows for free speech.

      Yes the US does believe in free speech even when it threatens the powerful. There are infrequent incidents in the other direction but they have a fantastic record.

      ____

      As for mega upload they were charged in Virginia court and Australia courts for crimes related to piracy. That is a typical business seizure that happens to businesses which are fundamentally criminal enterprises. You may disagree that megaupload was a fundamentally criminal enterprise but there is nothing unusual about the government seizing business assets for companies under indictment. That's not censorship.

    11. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      US courts ordered seizure of domains of legal gambling operations in places like Antigua and the WTO even backed Antigua's stance. The courts did this because gambling was bad in said state, so effectively US censorship was being exported not just globally, but to the detriment of foreign nations with no stake in the US.

      Also, ICE domain seizures have hit more than just illegal sites. In fact, this is one of the fundamental problems with them - there seems to be no real process to deem a site illegal or not, ICE just takes them regardless so you can't simply write them off as seizure of sites peddling illegal wares because that's never actually been proven because there is no process to do so.

      So fundamentally not only is the US seizing domains that are against it's laws, even if legal everywhere else in the world and using international rather than US specific domains, but it's also seizing domains without bothering to prove illegality. That IS censorship and of course, that's before you even get into the slightly greyer area of de-facto censorship by trying to cut funding to sites like Wikileaks by taking the unprecedented step of forcing Visa/Mastercard/Paypal to stop supporting them so that they can't afford to keep publishing- again, despite having broken no actual law.

      Sorry but it sounds like rather than simply accepting that the US absolutely has engaged in international censorship, you're merely trying to make excuses as to why it's not censorship, even though it clearly is.

    12. Re:Reading the draft treaty by jbolden · · Score: 1

      you're merely trying to make excuses as to why it's not censorship, even though it clearly is.

      No it isn't clear. I'm not saying the US hasn't shut down internet sites engaging in commerce, they certainly have. But that has nothing to do with censorship. Lets take your example and simplify by assuming it were domestic. The government could very easily seize a cardroom or illegal casino and that wouldn't be censorship. If they seized something like cardplayer magazine that would be censorship. Absolutely the USA wants to regulate commerce.

      Your complaints about ICE, the customs office is subject to US law and rules of due process. If they suspect criminal activity and the agency appears in court then it does go through the court system. There is the process. Now I agree that what the US is going is effectively exporting US law, and that is a problem. But it is not censorship.

    13. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how is the current status quo where the US can enforce censorship without Russia possible?

      I think the AC's point was that you'd need agreement from all 203 or whatever UN members, whereas currently you just need the US to decide to do it. The point being that the US can't use that as an excuse not to hand over unless it fully intends (and to be fair, has done) to implement censorship itself which in a circular way means the excuse makes no sense because the US is saying it wont hand it over because of censorship, but that's only a problem if the US supports that censorship meaning it's not actually an excuse not to hand it over if the US is going to go ahead with it anyway.

      Or to cut a long story short, your argument might be true, but it also implies that the US' primary argument against giving up control must therefore be inherently false. In other words, there is only contradiction in what he said if the US' argument is false, so effectively he's forced the argument to the logical conclusion that either censorship is not a problem, or censorship is a problem and the US is going to be to blame for it. Either way it shatters the US' argument that it's an inherently trustworthy custodian of the internet.

    14. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1/2 American's haven't been out the county?! That a massive exaggeration, over 80% do not even had a passport!

    15. Re:Reading the draft treaty by jythie · · Score: 1

      A lot of that depends on tradition though.. you can not come down on books or newspapers because they have gotten slapped for it in the past (and yeah, when those mediums were new, the government tried to crack down on them then too).. now we have a new medium and tradition isn't there, so we are going through the same cycle of seeing how much power they can exert before people get pissed off enough. That 'fantastic record' came about because when the government oversteeped people got angry, and we need to keep getting angry whenever they try to push those boundaries again.

    16. Re:Reading the draft treaty by jythie · · Score: 1

      I have known people who, cradle the grave, never traveled outside a 30 mile circle or so.

    17. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Hentes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm European and I think you are an idiot for bringing nationalism into a debate about the global net. Like it or not, the Internet has become what it is under American control, they developed it and built it up to a thing that fundamentally changed our lives. That's why I trust them much more than the barbarian-dominated UN. America is still the land of the free and one of the most liberal places in the world, and while I don't like it when they try to force that liberalism on the political or economical systems of other countries, that freedom is crucial for the Internet to function. The Internet is a worldwide thing, and national legislation of it is bullshit and would just fracture it into small subnets, ruining its biggest strength. And while I would love if it was led by a global organisation of professionals, that has exactly zero chance. In the current situation most countries only support the treaty because they want to censor the net and want to introduce tariffs on throughgoing traffic. This is a move to give politicians even more control over the net.

    18. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a matter to facts, though it might be a mute point, for all intensive purposes, I will probley never go they're either cradle the grave.

    19. Re:Reading the draft treaty by mcmaddog · · Score: 1

      That a massive exaggeration, over 80% do not even had a passport!

      and that is a massive lie. Now that a Passport is required to travel to Mexico and Canada, about 1/3 of Americans have a current passport or passport card, although it looks like that number is coming down after initially swelling after 2001.

    20. Re:Reading the draft treaty by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I don't see much evidence of censorship. Where is this actual censorship?

    21. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love you.

    22. Re:Reading the draft treaty by celle · · Score: 1

      "As for mega upload they were charged in Virginia court and Australia courts for crimes related to piracy. That is a typical business seizure that happens to businesses which are fundamentally criminal enterprises. You may disagree that megaupload was a fundamentally criminal enterprise but there is nothing unusual about the government seizing business assets for companies under indictment. That's not censorship."

          Bullshit! Even New Zealand's courts said the government blew it and should never had raided megaupload, which was legal locally, for shit going on in other countries. The entire raid was deemed illegal. The US may pay for this in less partnering from NZ later.

    23. Re:Reading the draft treaty by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Bullshit! Even New Zealand's courts said the government blew it and should never had raided megaupload, which was legal locally, for shit going on in other countries. The entire raid was deemed illegal. The US may pay for this in less partnering from NZ later.

      Your missing the point.

      The question is censorship / not censorship
      You are presenting evidence for legal under NZ law / illegal under NZ law

      That isn't the same question. The US government's interest in megaupload was they believed them to be engaged in piracy. Their interest was not to surpress ideas megaupload was spreading.

    24. Re:Reading the draft treaty by jbolden · · Score: 1

      There are lots of Americans that have been to places you could travel without a passport, traveled in ways that didn't require a passport (like in the military) or had a passport at one point and do not now have one.

    25. Re:Reading the draft treaty by butlerm · · Score: 1

      There is no American version of Brussels.

      Washington D.C. is the American version of Brussels.

    26. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That a massive exaggeration, over 80% do not even had a passport!

      and that is a massive lie. Now that a Passport is required to travel to Mexico and Canada, about 1/3 of Americans have a current passport or passport card, although it looks like that number is coming down after initially swelling after 2001.

      but think that USA is like 50 different states, when I think of it, I have travelled to many countries, but have never left Europe.

    27. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      When has the USA ever censored international domains?

      .com is an international domain. It may not have started that way, it certainly wasn't originally intended to be that way, but in practice that's what it has ended up becoming.

      So if the US seizes a .com domain for violating US law when the foreign-hosted site has not violated the laws of its own country, that would be censorship of an international domain. It may even be legal censorship under the excuse that those international domains are registered to the US, and that's why there are occasional movements to have .com come under international jurisdiction.

      The solutions would be to either leave things how they are, ensure that the .com does not host non-US company sites (and in the age of multinational companies, how do you do that?), or prohibit the seizure of .com sites in general.

    28. Re:Reading the draft treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being obtuse.

      Megaupload's content was most certainly censored by the illegal US-led raid. Or are you telling me there's some magical way I can access those personal backups I had on Megaupload now their servers are offline?

      My information has been censored, no two ways about it.

    29. Re:Reading the draft treaty by jbolden · · Score: 1

      No your information has been seized not censored.

      If your information were censored it would be illegal for you to publish that information in another forum but you would still have it.

    30. Re:Reading the draft treaty by jbolden · · Score: 1

      So if the US seizes a .com domain for violating US law when the foreign-hosted site has not violated the laws of its own country, that would be censorship of an international domain.

      No it wouldn't. Censorship doesn't become censorship based on the legal status of the information. You can censor illegal and legal information, for example child pornography is censored even though its production is illegal, while simulated child pornography is censored even though its production would otherwise be legal.

      If the US seizes a .com domain for violating US law what they are doing may be bullying and possibly should be subject to international regulation but it is not censorship unless they were otherwise censoring the information.

  9. im late im late! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and i just lost a TB of movies! Cmon guys, gimme a year to replace, and no more questions, aight?

    think not. Maybe this is what these new NSA telecom centers are really for.

    ~dangling prop

  10. Gandolf metaphor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Gandolf: "No! You must understand... I would use this ring from a desire to do good, but through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine".

    1. Re:Gandolf metaphor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gandolf

      Gandolf the red nose reindeer had a very shiny.. lalala :-)

  11. Re:Time for COMMUNISM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're slipping mate. I'm worried. There's no mention of dog smoochers or horse pigs. I guess it's the shock of actually being an Italian or is Laura keeping you busy?

  12. HO Ho by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Discussing Unfettered communication" in the UAE is like discussing celibacy in a brothel.

    1. Re:HO Ho by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which is to say, it's a fantastic time saver if the plan is to consider, but then reject, the idea...

    2. Re:HO Ho by toastking · · Score: 1

      Based of the SOPA and PIPA controversies, it isn't much better elsewhere either. The Patriot Act really shows how unfettered communication can be.

  13. Well, bollocks to that. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a non US citizen, I hope this fails completely and the US maintains control.

    As far as I can see, the US can be pretty crap, but they are by far the least worst option. if you think the US is bad look at the free speech protections of every single other country in the world.

    Presumably, this meeting won't actually mean anything unuless America decides to cede control. I don't se why they would actually do that.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:Well, bollocks to that. by gsgriffin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wow! A non-US citizen that isn't throwing crap at us every chance you get? Sure, we work hard, make a lot of money and help a lot of struggling nations, clean up after natural disasters, and give far more to charity around the world than any other nations (per person and collectively as a nation). There will no be many that try to turn that around and call us evil and controlling....I just try to imagine what the world would be like if Iran were the most powerful country in the world....how would this conversation be going on the Internet today....oh yeh, not well....you'd be hunted down, imprisoned and killed for writing this.

      Yes, the US wants to have protection over copyrighted material. Take away that completely, and you will see software and movies and entertainment fade away as they are unable to make money doing it. Give people that take the risk and pay upfront to create something their reward. I don't get this everything should always be free for everyone mentality....except, of course, if it is something YOU create or make...then you should get paid.

      Whatever...

      --
      jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
    2. Re:Well, bollocks to that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A non-US citizen that isn't throwing crap at us every chance you get?

      Oftentimes it's said that the more people claim you aren't number one, the more likely the inverse is, in fact, true.

      As Shakespeare said, He who Doth protesteth too much....

    3. Re:Well, bollocks to that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, we work hard, make a lot of money and help a lot of struggling nations, clean up after natural disasters, and give far more to charity around the world than any other nations (per person and collectively as a nation).

      That statement didn't sound true. So I did a quick look and the first I found was this:
      http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/charity.html

      It seems a rather balanced source, I'll summerize: The U.S. is not a charitable country compared to other rich nations. The U.S. citizens compensate this by donating more than other nations citizens.
      Higher taxed citizens seem to partly expect their government doing much charity work and thus do less themselves, where in the U.S. that seems to go the other way around.
      The combination, citizen + nation charity still doesn't put U.S. first though.

    4. Re:Well, bollocks to that. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Take away that completely, and you will see software and movies and entertainment fade away as they are unable to make money doing it.

      Do it. If people aren't willing to fund their entertainment voluntarily, why should my tax dollars be spent forcing them? If it's not worth it to you to pay money willingly it *should* go away.

      And consider the size of the entertainment industry compared to the computer industry. If we have to choose between general purpose computing, and an entertainment industry, technology clearly provides a larger chunk of our GDP. No question about it, tech is more valuable than entertainment.

      And that's assuming your worst case scenario where all the artists in the world take their balls and go home. What would actually happen is people would choose to fund the things they love. Look at Kickstarter, people donate what would be the full price of a game that hasn't even been created yet. There are other ways to do this besides creating scarcity with coercion.

      Copyright should be abolished. If that brings the end of the entertainment industry, that's still a net gain. But it wont, because entertainment predates copyright and it will out live copyright as well.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Well, bollocks to that. by Shark · · Score: 1

      Fair enough... But from a moral standpoint, I think I prefer the person who gives his own money to the person who gives someone else's money.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    6. Re:Well, bollocks to that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do it. If people aren't willing to fund their entertainment voluntarily, why should my tax dollars be spent forcing them? If it's not worth it to you to pay money willingly it *should* go away.

      Here's the thing - there's a difference between myself, who makes a conscious choice not to digest the drivel being produced in movies and on television, and Little Johnny down the street who downloads copyrighted (copywritten?) material just because he doesn't want to pay. This argument is invalid, because most people don't make the connection between I download, you download, no money changes hands, businesses shut down.

      And consider the size of the entertainment industry compared to the computer industry. If we have to choose between general purpose computing, and an entertainment industry, technology clearly provides a larger chunk of our GDP. No question about it, tech is more valuable than entertainment.

      What the fuck is the point of technology without games, music or movies? I don't even have an argument for this. That is the dumbest thing I have read today.

      nd that's assuming your worst case scenario where all the artists in the world take their balls and go home. What would actually happen is people would choose to fund the things they love. Look at Kickstarter, people donate what would be the full price of a game that hasn't even been created yet. There are other ways to do this besides creating scarcity with coercion. Copyright should be abolished. If that brings the end of the entertainment industry, that's still a net gain. But it wont, because entertainment predates copyright and it will out live copyright as well.

      This message I agree with. But, do you understand how many people the entertainment industry employs? It can't just be cut off the leg so our foot doesn't hurt anymore. It has to be, anesthesia then removal. Small steps

    7. Re:Well, bollocks to that. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The link doesn't mention one statistic that I think is important: debt relief. When one country offers another a loan, then for various reasons (either at the time or years later) says "You don't have to pay it back," does that count as either charity or foreign aid? I'll hear about the US forgiving debt in return for other agreements often, but I never hear about the reverse (and it's not like the US doesn't have debts..) Some of that might be media bias, but I doubt all of it does.

      The index penalizes arms sales, but what about if you send humanitarian supplies to an area controlled by a warlord? The dirty little secret about African aid is that many aid supplies are captured because a warlord controls an area firmly, and uses and withholds food as a way of keeping populations in line. Many of those areas deal with "food shortages" not because there's a real lack of food, but because that food is controlled by an authority that knows the control is key to its power. That's hardly limited to Africa either. On that note, what about, say, grain shipments to countries that puts their farmers out of business and leaves them dependent on foreign imports? (farmers usually can't compete with free food) Would that count as charity?

      There are so many grey areas and unresolved questions it seems tricky to put everything into an easy index, as much as we'd love to just be able to rank one country against another.

  14. The witch thus spake... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    By the pricking of my thumbs,
    Something wicket this way comes.

    1. Re:The witch thus spake... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      something wicket this way comes

      And what the heck does this have to do with an ewok?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:The witch thus spake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFS: the meeting is said to be called "WCIT – pronounced 'wicket'".

  15. But the +600 net will follow, too. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "If you agree to censor blasphemy and other anti-religious screeds, I'll agree to censor psychics, Scientologists, and anti-global warming claims."

    "Ok, but let's also require IDs for Intertube access so -1 Troll downmods will follow people everywhere they go."

    "Deal!"

    Beware the Ides of Peaceful Negotiation.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  16. Summary has a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (WCIT – pronounced 'wicket'). The topic of the meeting is nothing less than the regulation of the Internet.

    That should be pronounced "wicked".

  17. Old Doctor Who episode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_%28Doctor_Who%29

    Not quite Timey-Wimey, but definitely Wibbly-Wobbly.

    1. Re:Old Doctor Who episode? by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      I think you may have replied to the wrong story.

  18. No, that is not how it is pronounced. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    In December the nations of the world will gather in Dubai for the UN-convened World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT – pronounced 'wicket').

    It is pronounced wicked despite the T in the acronym to reflect the evil intentions and ulterior motives of them. And also to pretentiously sound like some organization that is the mortal enemy of some super hero.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:No, that is not how it is pronounced. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Something WCIT this way comes.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:No, that is not how it is pronounced. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't pronounced, *period*. It's an initialism.

  19. Internet regulation inevitable... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To avoid wealthy-elite/government domination of communications, you'll need an open source, wireless mesh internet, sort of like these guys (http://www.shareable.net/blog/afghans-build-open-source-internet-from-trash-0), to create an "underground" internet, perhaps literally (http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/research/FelixRadio/FelixRadio.htm).

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Internet regulation inevitable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Internet regulation inevitable... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because we'll make a mesh wireless network between the US, Europe and Australia, I don't foresee any problems there. Or even between big cities with a lot of nothing in between. Why reinvent the physical layer? If you got Internet, you can connect to any kind of overlay network, sort of like a global VPN. Or if you've seen Inception, like an Internet inside the Internet. Unless the outlaw that too, but then you're already living in a oppressive regime and got bigger issues than Internet regulation.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Internet regulation inevitable... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      We may or may not get a mesh or some other kind of network between continents. Gateways of some sort, legal or not, will probably ocur. If you don't understand why the physical layer must be distributed and reinvented, I suggest you think through the implications of dictatorships plus small numbers of easily controlled root servers, powered by a centralized electrical grid.

      And yes, they will try and outlaw that too. In case you haven't noticed, we in the USA are already starting down the oppressive regime path and we do indeed have bigger issues than internet regulation. Feel free to consider energy depletion, aging nuclear plants, inevitable hyperinflation of the dollar (assuming it's not abandoned by the oil producing nations first after the Saudi king dies), a possible war (or wars) in the middle east, the rate at which the arctic appears to be melting and the fact that there are still several thousand nuclear weapons in the world, most of which are accounted for.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  20. First contact with a space civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THAT will be the Most Important Meeting I Will Ever Hear.

    Your puny human meddlings will not hold a candle to that.

    1. Re:First contact with a space civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you will hear about that meeting. You (with 'you' meaning 'most people') will never hear about WCIT.

    2. Re:First contact with a space civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already happened and you'll never hear about it.

  21. Life, the Universe and Everything by pbarker3 · · Score: 1

    An international "wicket" meeting to regulate the Interwebs. - Wicket Gate? Now all we need are white robots showing up to free their Krikkit masters...

  22. censor the hostee net access! by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    hijack the internet connection and start censoring it. speed up the discussion a bit!

  23. We are going deeper undegraund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    internet will be divided, with different kinds of restrictions from different countries, it's now happening everywhere - in some places it's political, in some it's about copyright and another 'illegal' content, it is happening. It will be like this - from China you can see this part, from Europe this part, from Iran this another part of a used to be global network. We will have to live with it and find a ways around it, and, as a geeks, show the ways to the people. Get used to so called darknets - tor, i2p, and a likes. Get used to it and show people around you how to navigate it, share some resources for darknet operations - this is our future, free from censorship, politics, copyright or anything else. Because this battle is lost, casual internet WILL be censored and divided.

    Try this! http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/index.php/silkroad/category/12

  24. I hope the attendees don't eat any poppy seed buns by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    in business class.

    "In one of the most extreme cases, it [Dubai] reported a man being held after poppy seeds from a bread roll were found on his clothes."

    Dubai wants tourism and convention business, but their draconian drug paranoia makes this aspiration ridiculous. How many of the attendees to this conference will be harassed or even imprisoned I wonder? I know this is old news, but any chance I get I take the opportunity to share this BBC article concerning Dubai's absurd reactionary jailing of innocent visitors. I have been there (It's nothing special, people.) But now I shudder to think that I had my OTC allergy medicine with me. I would not go back to Dubai on a bet.

    The idea of having an internet conference there is like planning a human rights conference in Damascus. But, I guess since the organizers want anything but transparency, it makes for a terrible logic.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  25. ITU attempted to replace TCP/IP back in the Day by seawall · · Score: 5, Informative
    OK, many people involved are probably retired or dead by now, but way back in the early eighties there was the ISO networking standard which was to replace TCP/IP and it was HEAVILY pushed by ITU. It had it's charms but man it was heavy.

    "ISO will replace TCP/IP in 5 years" was a real thing. After 10 years the phrase became a joke. Now it isn't even that.

    Ever wondered why the L in LDAP stands for "Lightweight"? It started as a radically simplified version of ISO directory services.

    Almost nobody used ISO (including ITU, which at the time preferred paper over networks internally) but ITU really pushed it over that toy internet thing. They also charged a lot of money to buy the bookshelf-meters of ISO documentation...only available on paper for the most part.

    It is probably completely unfair to the ITU of 2012 but I find myself worried whenever they are mentioned in the same breath as "internet".

    1. Re:ITU attempted to replace TCP/IP back in the Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually got to read and recommend on NIST's death of GOSIP memo in the early 90's. Hurray for TCP/IP and open protocols!

    2. Re:ITU attempted to replace TCP/IP back in the Day by jaxom · · Score: 1

      I think you actually mean OSI (the Open Systems Interconnect). I remember having to deal with that to get DECnet working across multiple networks, including X.25. Fun times trying to remember the correct NSAPs...

    3. Re:ITU attempted to replace TCP/IP back in the Day by dkf · · Score: 1

      "ISO will replace TCP/IP in 5 years" was a real thing. After 10 years the phrase became a joke. Now it isn't even that.

      Assuming you mean OSI, it was in use on UK academic networks in the early '90s. I remember when it was scrapped in favour of IP, and the world became a better place. There are many good things about IP, but the key ones are that it can be implemented on many devices, that it can be routed over many different physical layers, and that it doesn't require all the nodes to know how to route to every other node they might ever want to contact (BGP and DNS are wonderful things, for all their flaws).

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    4. Re:ITU attempted to replace TCP/IP back in the Day by gcobb · · Score: 1

      We're not all dead. Some of those of us involved in OSI networking are still around!

      Be scared. Be very scared.

    5. Re:ITU attempted to replace TCP/IP back in the Day by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

      I was watching the ISO stack for a long time. Marshall Rose was involved with a sample implementation which was big. I seem to remember that the minimum functioning ISO stack was something like 80K back when you were lucky if you had 640K. The possibility of creating embedded systems that included the stack was prohibitively expensive at the time. I remember a time when only one or several vendors had an ISO stack you could license into a product. My attempts to understand it were hampered by the critical information spread evenly through a huge number of expensive documents. If you bought one, it referenced another,and there was no end in sight to the number of documents you would have to buy and absorb before you would have critical mass on an implementation, or enough of one to do anything. Marshall predicted that we would need a period of transition to move from the toy internet to the ISO version. After a while we didn't hear so much about it.

  26. You got the pronounciation wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's pronounced 'wicked'

  27. Now that I've head of it... by davidwr · · Score: 2

    What's the new Most Important Meeting I've Never Heard Of?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  28. Yub Yub by AtomicBison · · Score: 2

    WCIT – pronounced 'wicket'. Wicket as in Wicket Wystri Warrick? - "Starcruiser go CRISH CRISH!" CRISH CRISH as in the internet plummeting to it's doom? I see what they've done here....

  29. Is anyone else morbidly amused by... by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

    ...the fact that an organization that has human rights worldwide as core functions is hosting something in a known hotbed of human trafficking and slavery?

    $Deity what a fucking farce.

  30. Pronounced "wicked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Convening in Dubai. Your petrodollars at work.

    We could have been on the way to the stars by now. Instead the whole world is on the way a highway to hell. Morlocks and Eloi, etc. None free.

    Fuck these bastards. Fuck the UN.

  31. Dec 12? by debraye · · Score: 1

    So this must be what the Mayans where talking all along!

  32. I'm reminded of a quote... by BeanBagKing · · Score: 1

    "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -John Gilmore That said, governments of the world gathering to discuss peanut butter scares me for some reason. Gatherings to discuss the internet is absolutely horrifying...

  33. Yup by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    Dubai is an example of the glorious harmony between (middle) east and west!

    Kinda like Cleveland.

  34. In other secret meeting news.... by macraig · · Score: 1

    I've never heard of the Bilderberg group or its annual meetings. Honest!

  35. Entitlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If 5% of the wealthy contain 97% of the wealth, they should be paying 97% of the taxes (hint: that number is wrong, its less). One penny less should be a crime.

    The people that get the most out of government money are the ones that own businesses. Those roads your trucks go down: Tax money. Those police that keep your riches safe: Tax money. Those laws that forbid mere private citizens from participating in the arbitrage that made the wealthy and keep them so: Tax money.

    There is no respect to be found being an apologist. You don't deserve it.

    1. Re:Entitlement by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If 5% of the wealthy contain 97% of the wealth, they should be paying 97% of the taxes (hint: that number is wrong, its less).

      Nothing like using known incorrect numbers to make an argument.

      You need to learn the difference between "wealth" and "income". What you want to do is tax someone on their income (it is "wealth in the first year of ownership"), and then on whatever part of that income they've been able to save or invest (true wealth) over and over again until it is gone.

      That's called "wealth redistribution." It's also called "from those according to their means to those according to their wants".

      The people that get the most out of government money are the ones that own businesses.

      Not always. Some businesses don't make a profit. Some make marginal profits. Just "owning a business" isn't a sign of wealth. Even so, they pay business taxes on what they do profit. And taxes on their employees even when they don't profit.

      Those roads your trucks go down

      Gasoline and other road taxes. Since very few of those trucks are electric, very few of them are avoiding gas taxes by not using gas, which many other people are doing, or by using newer high MPG cars.

      Those police that keep your riches safe

      And keep YOUR property safe, and keep your poor neighbors from stealing what little you have. Do you imagine that a rich person being mugged and losing his watch and wallet is as big a deal as a poor one being mugged for the same?

      And police typically come from property taxes, not income. State police, yes. Local police, no. So, again, business owners (except the ones who have managed a development district deal) are paying substantially more for police than you are, because their commercial property is considerably more valuable.

  36. Are these guys more or less useless than ICANN? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    'cause ICANN hasn't done shit - other than find new ways to line their own pockets (while patting themselves on the back) - in a very, very, long time.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  37. very doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TAV alone is more than 3% of the government budget, so your 5% pay 97% I am guessing you are making a hand waving somewhere and not telling the truth.

  38. Wicked Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't it be pronounced like Ice Cube intended?

  39. Who was it... by SwampChicken · · Score: 1

    ...that allowed these organisations to become masters of our internet? Business? Politicians? Or was it self-proclamation?

    1. Re:Who was it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or was it self-proclamation?

      So, like, me and my buds had this very high level meeting down in my basement last night, right? And you know, we figured that it would be best for, like, everybody in the whole wide world if WE were the ones who, you know, controlled the internet and stuff. And this was a TOTALLY binding meeting, so like, all you internet guys just need to, you know, hand over all the passwords or whatever. Stuff will totally run better with us in charge - you know, we decided it at that meeting I told you about - so, like, you can put us in charge now.

  40. Simple Answer to your question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To put it simply, the system has to change radically.

  41. I would say it serves a higher purpose by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    But the entire point of language is to communicate your ideas in an understandable manner to whomever your audience is,

    That's true but, if you speak to a level slightly above your audience you also improve the ability to communicate in the future by being able to use some more abstract vocabulary terms.

    I think it's better to aim slightly high than to try and write for an imagined lowest common denominator. The audience will get the gist even if they don't quite know a word or two.

    It's not about one-upping, it's about improving everyone.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley