Slashdot Mirror
Can There Be a Non-US Internet?
Daniel_Stuckey writes "After discovering that the US government has been invading the privacy of not just Americans, but also Brazilians, Brazil is showing its teeth. The country responded to the spying revelations by declaring it'll just have to create its own internet. In reality, although Brazil President Dilma Rousseff is none too happy with the NSA's sketchy surveillance practices, Brazil and other up-and-coming economies have been pushing to shift the power dynamics of the World Wide Web away from a US-centric model for years."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5tZMDBXTRQ
How about the entire world.
While it should be relatively simple for any country to set up its own DNS servers, interesting services and so on; the sheer amount of 'information' that is hosted in the US would make any 'internet' experience without it severely lacking.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
The day may be approaching when some countries will have their own DNS roots and root servers. That's been threatened before, but now it's more likely to happen.
There is no way to defend an undersea cable from the submarine that will be splicing into it far out to sea after a ship accidently drags their anchor across it close to shore.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The only thing unique about the United States is the resources. That is what is so sad about this: the entire idea of "American Exceptionalism" is the notion that the United States stands alone as a country; Unique in it's respect for freedom and human rights. The NSA's violation of every honor code existing in TCP/IP has demonstrated the United States to be equally mediocre as any other country, where virtue and abuse of power are concerned.
Once you lose your credibility you can never get it back. Its actions have left the entire internet community in search for new social & technological methods for enforcing these basic tenets of privacy that were previously easy to support via a fragile honor system: the United States promised to not be a dick and molest other people's cake as it got passed to the left.
Fundamentally the reason that the internet is US centric is partially the fact that ICANN is located in the US, but mostly because the most used services are based in the US. To create a truly non US-centric model you would have to relocate ICANN and come up with significant competitors to people like Google etc who have no US presence(once they have a US presence they're subject to all the same laws that allow the NSA to spy on you in the first place).
You could technically achieve this, but the countries which could be candidates for replacing the US in this position are not Brazil and would also spy on traffic. So unless this is yet another pissing match where idiots go in with the slogan "Anyone but the US", making the internet non US centric is a gigantic waste of everyone's time and money. I mean does anyone seriously believe that if Chinese companies displaced the US ones that China wouldn't spy on everyone, or that the Europeans wouldn't either also spy or allow the NSA to spy?
Over years the NSA has seen, predicted and pre positioned the US to always be at the forefront of any emerging export grade telco standards or code.
That global US backed standard infrastructure was invested into by many countries on good faith with 'private/public' hard currency loans with real interest rates.
The US and UK baited countries with speed, trade deals, low costs, crime fighting laws to ensure global uptake.
What can be done? Reconfigure all public and private core gov networking? No more wireless, on site staff or wired links. Water, gas, electrical, public/private medical billing, emergency services, transportation, police/jail/legal/gov... everything that a skilled outside spy agency 'needs' to track domestic patterns and target individuals.
Such an air gapped national system running domestic code would suggest to the US needs CIA/special forces teams 'on site' for long term database entry in the future.
An epic nation building boondoggle for domestic hardware supplies, skilled coders, telcos, engineers and private security firms.
The most important aspect the US seemed to have wanted to shape was standards of crypto, OS and database backends per nation. To be decoded and readable from the USA as needed with limited US or local staff 'knowing'.
So you need your own file system, own OS, own database, own crypto and understanding that all wider national and international networks are a constant threat.
Is your country any safer from the NSA and CIA/special forces teams on the ground than say the Soviet Union was? No, but the per site cost just went way up.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
notably for offering an easier way to avoid 'namespace pollution' by seperating the networks into regions based off a numerical 'country id'
We already have this. That's why we have amazon.com and amazon.co.uk and amazon.de and amazon.fr etc. This has nothing to do with IPv4 vs IPv6, especially since the latter has more than enough addresses to last until we are off this planet (which will never happen).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
...as if the United States was the first, last, and only country to hold a government that spies on its own citizens in some way?
Are we really THAT naive to think that A) the United States invented this concept, and B) no other government thought to do it too?
It's mentalities like this that shock me more than anything Snowden could reveal. I find mass ignorance far more alarming, as it tends to hint as to what governments are yet capable of doing to you. To all of us. While the deaf and blind vote for it.
We were ignorant enough to pay for and allow a program like PRISM to come to fruition. Sitting back assuming that no other country has a similar or same capability is like assuming no one masturbates because people don't talk about it.
It wasn't all that long ago that most stories about internet freedom covered the abuses of North Korea, China, and the Islamic Republics. Of course there were always a few comments, usually from our brave AC's, who claimed the US did the same but was better at hiding it. Bless all the slashdot anonymous cowards, keep up the good work.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
In reality, although Brazil President Dilma Rousseff is none too happy with the NSA's sketchy surveillance practices
In reality, getting a 'non-USA' internet won't do anything to stop the NSA. What difference does it make who gives out DNS names and IP addresses? (because that's what they mean when they say non-USA internet).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The onslaught of marketing from the (currently) big sites in the US has actually helped to kill off quite a few sites in other countries. Many of those sites offered the same thing as the big US sites, and predated them by a few years, but were mostly limited to the local spoken language.
As for the "US probably have the world's largest group of creative people", I'd like some of what you're smoking.
Why, yes! I AM new here.
The US, over the coming decade(s), will maneuver itself into insignificance, what with the deplorable state its infrastructure is in, its surveillance state, its ridiculous and money-devouring War on Terror, the antipathy its permanent and futile interventionist wars in developing countries. Already now, practically 100% of the start-ups I see with cool new stuff are not US American anymore. They are European, mostly. As a South African singer put it, a few years ago: "The sun is going down over America".
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
That is not what they declared, building local cloud, secure email services and infrastructure is different from "creating it's own internet" and I never heard this wording here, only in "international" press. The big difference is that when someone talk like that it gives the idea that it will be separated from the rest of the internet. That is not what the Brazilian government is proposing.
The national constitution (I'm Brazilian) states that the State has to provide the basic rights that are not met otherwise (if you can't buy water the State has to provide it, there is free medical care, the best universities are free, etc). Since private communications are a basic right (our constitutuion and the universal declaration of human rights), they are planning to offer alternatives for people who care.
Honestly, to force local clouds seems like a double win. On one hand you make companies accountable for our citizens rights, on the other hand - the one I think is the main point here - it creates investments, infrastructure, brings technology and high tech jobs. The cables to Europe are a need, our internet sucks. I hope they make some cables to China and Russia too, as online gaming is better over there.
But mainly, there is no censorship here, Brazilians will not be separated from the internet and nobody in the country thinks that even a possibility. Specially since this government is the one that fought against censorship in the past, you know, during the US created military dictatorship from 64 to 86/90.
No, I heard it was 10" of solid rebar.
There Internet (Arpanet) existed before WWW. WWW is a subset of the Internet.
The USA is a big and complicated thing. There are a lot of different people, groups, schools, parties, etc. in America. As everywhere else.
No one wants to disconnect the North America from the Internet. But its contribution should be positive. Nowadays it leaves an impression of a total eavesdropping of the Internet and it scares people.
The article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives the right of privacy of communication and home to all people on Earth.
Yes, but what was it? One more obscure communication protocol.
The WWW Internet is a global phenomenon now. And the WWW Internet was invented by a physicist who was trying to solve a real physical problem.
He was trying to solve a problem of distributing scientific papers among CERN scientists. He did it during work time paid by CERN and on the CERN's computer.
The main database of the Internet, MySQL, is also an International project.
It is just not true that the Internet is sort of an US present to the world. It is not.
We thought that the US government is playing a positive role for the Internet. Until E.S. revealed what is really going on.
Instead of working together with other governments to fight spam, cyber crime, etc. it all came down to the total carpet spying on us, to creating back-doors. It is not nice at all.
Because the NSA is still going to p0wn your routers. And find a way to get the data home. Done.
The internet as we know it today was built out of a lot of national networks connecting into the US one. Initially charges for data transfer between such networks were very high so servers like mirror.aarnet.edu.au were set up to mirror popular content from other networks - in that case from outside of the Australian network AARNET. That address still has a mirror of a lot of popular content - now available with that newfangled http :)
Exactly. Have you seen Europorn? Ick.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The government of Switzerland may disagree that Geneva is an international city. Cosmopolitan might be the world you are looking for.
Also, it wasn't the web that prevented closed-garden internets, but rather universities. Until the mid 1990s, nearly everyone on the Internet (on any protocol) was at a university or research institute (like CERN). The universities weren't trying to make a profit, so they embraced an open architecture. It was US dominated, because then as now, most large research universities are in the US. Then, mainly US companies took that university network and popularized it. So, it's very much the fault of the US university system that the internet is so open.
*word
This is a common misconception. The WWW is not merely stuff transmitted over TCP port 80 on the Internet. It's an information space that has the ability to use the Internet as a transport mechanism. It's not a subset of the Internet, it's a higher level abstraction than the Internet.
Anything addressable by URI is a node in the WWW. For instance, POTS telephone numbers are leaf nodes because you can address them with tel:. They are on the WWW but they aren't on the Internet. Something can be on the WWW and not on the Internet and vice-versa.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Ever use email? Dropbox? Online games from your XBox or PC? FTP? VOIP? Bittorrent?
All these and thousands more are internet protocols that don't use WWW.
And, by the way, we do have multiple Internets (with a big I). Read up on Internet 2. And there's lots and lots of internets (with a little i) that you don't know about because they're not connected to the Internet (with a big i)
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Hey now, no need to put the rest of the world in such a bad light!
And two out of three, ain't bad.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
There was the technology to transmit images over the telegraph still in 30s. But the real popularity of the net started with the invention of the WWW at the CERN.
By the way, the actual invention was done not by a programmer but by the an engineer who was doing the real work.
Amazon's actually using the namespace partly because the publishing world has lots of weird national boundaries - a given book might be published in the US but not yet available in the UK because UK publishing rights haven't been sold to a UK publisher yet, or the UK edition may have different text, title, or cover - and they use the namespace to help keep that isolated.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Actually, it is the government of the Republic and Canton of Geneva, which, is, indeed, in the Swiss Confederation.
It is Geneva International all right. It started with another grand idea. Henry Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross, came out with the idea that the wounded soldier does not belong to any state or government anymore. That she/he belongs to the higher authority.
This idea still keeps changing the wold.
Millions and millions of the websites cannot be wrong.
The most common reasons governments want to have non-US "internet governance" these days are that they want to restrict free speech and free reading by their citizens, or restrict some kinds of commerce by their citizens (US restricts gambling, drugs, etc.) There are other issues; most governments used to have telecom monopolies, either state-run or quasi-nationalized, though the 90s liberalized much of that away. Some governments would like more money to stay in their countries, or keep people from buying goods online that are heavily taxed locally.
It really irks me when international groups get together to talk about internet policy, and advertise their shindig as being about "ending the digital divide" or "providing connectivity to Africa" or other noble-sounding goals, but actually devote most of their agenda to governments wanting censorship. These days, of course, the NSA is giving them a good excuse to want internet governance so they can do their own wiretapping in case the NSA isn't sharing.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Oh, puh-LEEZ! On Slashdot, no less! The Internet and the World Wide Web are NOT the same thing! That's just embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Gitcher own Al Gore!
Table-ized A.I.
Another BBS (Bulletin board system) user.
I tend to think that there are lots of people that want to disconnect North America from the rest of the internet and I don't think that we will miss them much either. We can firewall America - From The Outside - if we want to.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
"You cannot build The Planetary Datalinks here. The US have already completed this project."
And now they get to spy on everyone else for the rest of the game.
No, that's not true. The Internet is a derivation of Arpanet, which was created by the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The protocols were invented by the Internet Engineering Task Force (TCP/IP, FTP, NTP, UDP, etc.). The physical portion used by most people --ethernet-- was created at Xerox Parc by Bob Metcalf et. al.: Ethernet was developed at Xerox PARC between 1973 and 1974.[1][2] It was inspired by ALOHAnet, which Robert Metcalfe had studied as part of his PhD dissertation.[3] The idea was first documented in a memo that Metcalfe wrote on May 22, 1973, where he named it after the disproven luminiferous ether as an "omnipresent, completely-passive medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves".[1][4][5] In 1975, Xerox filed a patent application listing Metcalfe, David Boggs, Chuck Thacker, and Butler Lampson as inventors.[6] In 1976, after the system was deployed at PARC, Metcalfe and Boggs published a seminal paper.[7][note 1]
Metcalfe left Xerox in June 1979 to form 3Com. (Thanks Wikipedia). HTML (page creation protocol) was created by In 1980, by physicist Tim Berners-Lee, who was a contractor at CERN. So the networking protocols were invented in the US, the hardware was invented in the US, and the most commonly used markup language was created by a British Physicist while subcontracted to work at a Swiss research lab. FTFY
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sorry, WWW is the web - nothing else.
But, yes - commonly, when people say "the internet" they do mean the web.
tel URLs may be part of 'the web' in the sense that you may put tel:-links in your web pages -- but that doesn't make tel: or ftp: or telnet: or gopher: whatever other protocol identifier you may have "the web".
The Web was invented at Cern, not the Internet - the Internet has been around long before then.
If you can still find it, maybe have a look at Ed Krol's "The Whole Internet" (see wikipedia) - a book published in the "earlier" days of the WWW - one that helped really helped popularize "the net"...
With that, the web itself IS a subset of what the internet is - the mere fact that it allows for URL schemes to link to non-www resources doesn't make it less of a subset; unlike gopher, ftp - which didn't have those links...
There are way more Internet users outside of the US many of them with faster Internet at cheaper rates. The two biggest Internet exchanges are in Frankfurt (DE-CIX) and Amsterdam (AMS-IX) and in terms of traffic peaks and traffic transfers they leave the US as a tiny dot in their rear-view mirror. The biggest e-commerce market in the world when measured by the amount spent per capita? The UK, in 2010. The e-commerce market in absolute numbers in China will at least equal but probably surpass the US in 2013. And that's only one of the BRIC countries. Now add Japan (Rakuten) and Europe and it's easy to see that the Internet is global and definitely not US centric. Anyone who thinks that follies like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Instagram make up the majority of the Intertubes is probably American, thinks Fox News tells the truth and has never left his/her country :-) The same goes for those fine optical cables transporting all those cat videos. Most cables are not owned by US companies. And most cables are not even near the US. US companies may lease fibre in those cables but that's not the same. Have a look at all submarine cables here: http://submarine-cable-map-2013.telegeography.com/ Building your own Internet is a matter of finding the cash, hiring one of those cable ships and put your cable between point A and B. Next thing you will do is hook it up to an Internet exchange at which point it will start to transport traffic from the US (the NSA, cat videos) and to the US (the NSA backup, when posting, tweeting, tumblering and instagramming about those cat videos). The only place where the Internet is US centric is in regulatory control: ICANN. It's time ICANN got replaced by an extension of the IETF located outside of the US in a neutral place like Switzerland. ICANN can keep .com, and .mil but anything else should get transferred to the new organization. And no I will not hold my breath for that to happen any time soon.
So the networking protocols were invented in the US, the hardware was invented in the US, and the most commonly used markup language was created by a British Physicist while subcontracted to work at a Swiss research lab. FTFY
You forgot about the protocol known as the Hypertext Transport Protocol, running atop of one of those US-developed protocols (which were at least inspired by work done in France); that protocol was created by a British physicist working at a European research lab located in Switzerland.
it is simply breaking the dominance where "stuff on the internet" means in 99% of all cases that stuff is in the US or at least under US jurisdiction
but once you disconnect the USA, in its entirety, from your little country's network then it is not the Internet
Not that this is what Brazil, for example, is proposing. (Some countries might want to disconnect their networks from the rest of the world, including but not limited to the US, but that's another matter.)
So Brazil will develop also his own OS, is own hardware, CPUs, routers, and firewalls? idiots. The bigger problem of all is reliance on Windows.
did the USA actually sign up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
When it was voted on, the US voted yes.
However, as that part of the UN Yearbook 1948-1949 says (see p. 535), "the Declaration only marked a first step since it was not a convention by which States would be bound to carry out and give effect to the fundamental human rights; nor would it provide for enforcement", so I'm not sure what it would mean to "sign up"; I don't think there was a treaty to be signed in that case.
Sending pictures by wire was done in about 1840 actually - in France.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I tend to think that there are lots of people that want to disconnect North America from the rest of the internet and I don't think that we will miss them much either.
--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
"Disconnect North America ... I don't think that we will miss them much", followed by ", eh!"? Isn't that ironic?
Most Brazilians do not speak English or Spanish and have no reason whatsoever to connect to anything in the USA. In the mean time, a South African built cable system runs around Africa to Portugal, which Brazil can conveniently hook up to, if they would build a cable across the Atlantic from Rio to Cape Town and then their international network traffic will not have to pass through the USA.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Are you sure?
It seems it started in 20s century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirephoto
In any case, it was also kind of an Internet.
My point was that it became really popular, en masse, globally, after the invention (and release into public domain) at the CERN.
There have been enough of these headlines inferring that other countries want to fork the internet. That has never been said anywhere. The real plan is actually in the TFA, surrounded by the author's unsubstantiated FUD:
All of these are perfectly sensible if you can wrap your head around the concept that US isn't a belevolent dictator, it's more like an abusive stepfather. Would you like it if all your data was stored in China? How about if most of your international traffic was routed through Russia? No? So maybe now you're getting a hint where Brazil's attitude is coming from. They have the power to become more self-reliant, and that doesn't mean creating a different internet, it means having more control over its own resources while being connected to the plain old internet.
TL;DR: Stop the FUD.
the sheer amount of 'information' that is hosted in the US would make any 'internet' experience without it severely lacking.
Given that the national language of Brazil is portuguese I would be amazed if there is much US-based information available in that language. As a result I expect that the impact would be a lot less than you imagine. In addition, if they set it up well under an international mode I expect other countries will want to join.
Started thinking about this and the shopping list came out a lot like one you'd need for your own top to bottom security. Would it really be other governments however? I mean as a private, highly technical individual I'd rather (in order of preference)...
1) Set up my own standalone infrastructure (DNS, IPv6, PKI, CA, eBGP?) and have that counter signed by friends, family, colleagues and the gov of any country of which I'm a citizen.
2) Rely on the infrastructure of multiple trustworthy external entities, both private business and gov.
3) Rely on a single, hopefully trustworthy infrastructure provider (where I am ATM).
Regards, Phil
In general I don't think it would work to completely separate the network. But you could make it uneconomic for big businesses to have their servers out of country.
1. Make sure you have control of the major inputs and outputs of the network.
2. Monitor and limit bandwidth for major sites (defined in the law) going in and out of the country.
3. Create a permit and pay-scale to allow for big businesses to communicate on large scale outside of the country as needed. (Eg. Twitter, Google, Facebook all need outside input to make their full offering available, but mostly could act within country and save their bandwidth taxes)
4. Being inside the country means they have to follow the local laws or risk punishment.
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
Their own internet might simply mean "not connected or dependent upon" the current network
I have seen nothing to indicate that Brazil is thinking of not allowing packets to be routed to the rest of the Internet, or even just to US; they are thinking of allowing packets to much of the rest of the world to be routed there without passing through the US, but that's another matter (and that appears to have been an idea originated in South Africa, well prior to the Snowden revelations).
From the topic article: "...pushing to shift the power dynamics of the World Wide Web away from a US-centric model for years."
The point was that it did not begin as "US-centric", that it was non-US from the very beginning. It was international, including the USA, that is why it is called Internet.
Short of a new network protocol you might have issues getting the IP blocks for international routing. The only way I can see it happening is during the migration to IPv6 and only if either the world unanimously votes to start their own equivalent of IANA allows current non-US blocks to remain allocated without paying a second time (perhaps simply paying their next renewal fee to the Internationalized replacement to 'port over')
No. You don't understand how it works.
The IANA delegated the IP blocks (and it's done with that, it doesn't have anymore left) to the Regional Internet Registrars, of which there are 5. Brazil gets it's global IP's from LACNIC, which is not the IANA, is independant from the IANA, and is not US-based. US based companies get their IP's from the US based LACNIC equivalent, ARIN. The only real question would have been possibly DNS, since all the root servers used to be located in the US, but that hasn't been true for a long time.
There is absolutely nothing that would prevent Brazil from doing this technology wise. The only question is one of infrastructure.
It is perhaps ironic that the nations putting the most serious effort into a non-US-centric Internet have governments even less trustworthy than that of the US itself. Which is saying something, in light of the recent surveillance stuff, but it's no less true for that.
"Furthermore, with the continued erosion of the US economy into a non-producing one,"
Really? The latest widely-published statistics I read said that the average American is still 30% more productive per work hour than the rest of the Western world.
[citation needed]
Yes, and either during its construction or within 3 months of completion, the US will be tapped into it, gathering every photon possible.
There already are non-US internets. Every country has it's own section of the "Internet". Most, like Thailand, have gateways through which all traffic in and out of the country must pass. Some, like Canada, don't care. Every country has it's own block of domain names, like *.co.th.
Oh yes, I fogot to mention another global factor: The bastards at the NSA. The NSA wiretaps the president of Brazil; Brazil does not wiretap Barack Obama.
The statistics I read said Germans are the most productive per work hour than the rest of the world and get more work done than other countries that have longer working hours, such as the USA.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I don't know about 30%, but the statistic for people being productive is usually the GDP per capita
.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Nobody is stopping them.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Thisis either sad or hilarious, I'm still deciding. Basically, the "conversation" just went like this:
-Statistics I've seen say that birds double in value when transferred from bush to hand.
-Really? Where have you seen those numbers?
-Fuck you, I don't have to tell you.
Reminds me of this, but applied to the internet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8062QEFk5g
No, you stated a claim. For it to be recognized as a truth, you have to prove it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
And U.S. workers average ~40 work hours per week (42 for men, 38.5 for women), whereas German workers average 35 hours per week, so if you are measuring per hour, Germany wins, but if you are measuring per work week, the U.S. has a 14% advantage due to amount of time worked, and the U.S. wins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#European_Union
If it keeps Brazilians and Turkish hackers, griefers, and bots off my MMO's then yes, by all means, PLEASE make another internet!
I think it's a matter of whom would you like to have at your backdoor. If they build out with a US or a Chinese based infrastructure stack, we now know these are compromised from the beginning. However feasible, they would need to use home-grown telecom equipment ( which would undoubtably then have a Brazilian back door) . Any trans-Atlantic or Pacific fiber would still have to be suspect. NSA or GCHQ can still tap these at the other end (or even under the sea).
It is not unjustified to inquire about a source no matter what you may feel about the subject. For all your accusations of people being rude all you had to reply with is "I don't have a source", instead you went on a defensive rant about it.
Ok, so maybe you're not required to provide a source, but it makes your original comment basically worthless to this conversation without one.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
I never said "[citation needed]".
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Its all going to be unusable here soon anyway. It almost is now.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You missed the part of my comment that stated "get more work done than other countries that have longer working hours, such as the USA."
So, no, U.S. didn't win.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
The statistics I read said that I was the Queen of England.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Iran has already done it. It has built an Intranet like network which connects to outside world through few gateways. The transition of the network users to the new Intranet is being done at the time being and will complete in year.
The main purpose is the:
1- Avoid the internal Iranian traffic to travel over the internet (i.e. unknown countries). ....
2- To control in/out traffic (deep packet inspection, control access to outsider websites, attack and spying control, allow access to Iran-only websites just from inside Iran, emergency kill switch).
3- Force Iranian organizations to host their website in Iranian data centers.
4- Save traffic costs.
5- Flourish local hosting and cloud business and local peering between ISPs.
Compel the US to review its surveillance policies by ejecting US companies. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. having the ears of congressman. If their bottom lines are being hurt by this stuff, they'll lean on policymakers.
I think the language advantage the US-centric internet has is that English is a lingua franca, and Portuguese isn't.
You missed the part of my comment that stated "get more work done than other countries that have longer working hours, such as the USA."
So, no, U.S. didn't win.
I also:
o Left out the vacation time & vacation time take discrepancies, which drop up to 2 and a half months off of German productivity per year.
o Didn't request you to cite your source, as you requested of the poster to which you were replying, despite your reply having established a source citation criteria.
o Cited my source on work hours.
Ball is in your court now...
And we could dump all this hippy TCP/IP crap and go back to proper ITU standards after all no one really needs competition for telephone service do they :-)
Would make tapping the oppositions phones easy so when the coup happens you can easily round them up for the helicopter trip (on way) round the bay.
Of course. It's a tautology - the WWW is the WWW. That doesn't contradict anything I said and I'm not sure what you think you are pointing out.
Anything addressable by URI is part of the web. All of those things are leaf nodes in the information space that is the web.
By listing those things, it sounds like you are thinking that the WWW is HTTP. The WWW is not a protocol. It's an abstract information space. This is the misconception I was trying to clear up in my earlier comment. HTTP is not the defining technical aspect of the web - URIs are, and URIs are not limited to HTTP.
I know this. This doesn't contradict anything I said. The fact that something predates the web does not mean that the web cannot encompass it. Would you say that The Colosseum isn't in Italy because it existed before Italy?
I really don't think you understood what I was trying to explain. The WWW is an information space that describes a web of interconnected resources. Just because something is older than the web or just because it uses a particular protocol that isn't HTTP, it doesn't mean it can't be an entity in that information space. Read Architecture of the World Wide Web for more information on this.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I wonder how many Brazilians are going to install American tech in their homes programmed to watch and identify everyone who comes near it, listen to every word, and (once required to be, now just usually) connect to the Internet to phone home. How many Brazilians will pay for the privilege?
XBone. Enjoy your illusion of privacy.
The Internet itself, as well as the term "internet", predate the WWW and have always been US-centric. The "inter" in internet is referring to the interconnection of otherwise local networks (internetworking). It was called the Internet long before it was ever even international.
The WWW is great, and I appreciate the international network that we have now, but your terminology is wrong.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Even if the rest of the world did this, too many other countries (notably those part of FIVE EYES / FVEY) will simply share data back to the USA. Then, you have the problem that other countries such as China, Israel, Singapore, and Korea will simply do the same sort of surveillance as the USA is doing today. In fact, if you think those countries aren't already engaged in such activities, even if only to a smaller extent than the USA, you're living under a rock.
So basically, accusing other people of lying is fine, but having people demand evidence for said accusations is rude, since it implies they don't simply take your word for it?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Anything with a URI is on the WWW.
URIs do not point away from the WWW, they reference resources on the WWW. Anything with a URI is part of the WWW, a URI pointing "away" from the WWW doesn't make sense. By giving something a URI, you are incorporating it into the WWW.
No, it just means that it's a leaf node. You can't follow a hyperlink from a JPEG image, does that mean that there are no JPEG images on the WWW?
Go read Architecture of the World Wide Web , which was part-authored by Tim Berners-Lee. Or read some of his earlier work that this document was based upon, for instance Universal Resource Identifiers -- Axioms of Web Architecture , where he writes:
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Computing and networking research was going on everywhere in the world. But the grand idea, which made it a global, international phenomenon, was generated by an engineer-physicist at the CERN, in Europe. And the CERN administration wisely and bravely released the WWW into the public domain.
It did not happen in the USA. And it is well documented. The USA was and is playing the important role. But it was simply not the place where it happened. And I do not believe it could happen. It would be patented, put in a silo, sold in small pieces.
I do not mean that the commercial approach is bad. It made such giants as Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc.
But the WWW was much much bigger, it changed the human civilization. It made the Internet what it is now.
It was an scientific exploit, simple and elegant, equal to the ones of Nicolaus Copernicus, René Descartes, Dmitri Mendeleev, etc. And it was also produced by a scientist-engineer.
I don't care if you didn't. I'm not "Jane Q. Public (1010737)", whom was the person offended by being asked for source.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
ARPANET
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
You just don't get it do you?
By posting information you influence others. If everyone was like you then all it would take would be for one person to post an erroneous claim only to have you and your kind repeat it.
"Citation needed" is a polite way to point out that whatever information was posted it should probably be disregarded unless evidence is provided.
So either you made a mistake or tried to influence people's perspective with information that was not factual.
I you choose to be offended then that is your choice.
You might as well have just said fuck off for all the value your reply had
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Well no, it is not. Productivity cannot be measured in GDP due to various (political, military, ownership/control of resources etc.) factors skewing international trade that it's derived from.
Anyway, Americans are obviously not top country vis-a-vis GDP. And that is after the fact that USA is the big-dog of international relations that doesn't shy from imposing control over someone else's resources using military aggression (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya to name a few), which is hardly true for places like Luxembourg or Norway.