Let's review. Firefox comes out of nowhere and forces MS to upgrade IE. With better browsers, Google can create Gmail. Google rewards Mozilla by paying a huge amount of money for being the default search engine in Firefox. One problem. Thunderbird competes with Gmail. Perhaps not coincidentally, Mozilla now kicks Thunderbird out of the nest. The new entity, Mailco, takes the remnants of Eudora (Penelope) with it, clearing the decks for a Gmail vs. Outlook showdown.
Of course, if you want standards-based e-mail, you can't use Outlook. The IMAP implementation is horribly broken to goad users into using Exchange and MAPI. If you want personal computing based e-mail, you can't use Gmail (a web app reminiscient of being on a mainframe terminal). This is especially sensitive if you are in a business that might compete with Google, since it would be easy for them to do something untoward (regardless of whether they actually would).
Now OOo steps up to partner with Mailco and Thunderbird.
So maybe there is a future for standards-based e-mail in personal computing after all. I hope so.
As problematic as the obsession with DRM is, the biggest problem with the music industry is that profit per unit is not high enough to sustain continued investment, because capital can easily be invested elsewhere for higher ROI. This goes for both record producers and music stores.
The solution is to increase profit per unit. That is done by increasing unit price, to about $50 per album.
How do you get a consumers to buy music albums for $50 a piece? Take a page from the boxed set and extend the concept.
Make sure the entire content has quality music. You want consumers to be able to derive hours and hours of non-stop enjoyment from the product. No more manufactured bands and no more "song and dance acts."
HD formats without the DRM
Remaster to support surround sound
Include full-length video material on DVD, including the music videos
album art, posters, copious liner notes with photos, lyrics, sheet music, guitar tabs, WMP/Winamp/whatver visualizations unique for the artist. Mini-biographies of the artists. Fun, unique little narratives for the consumer to read.
unique items that make the consumer use of the product into an "experience"
No DRM and you don't need DRM because no one can make a digital copy of an "experience" anyway.
Ok, now that I've saved you, please cut me in on the action. No, really!
If the inventor builds it without running a good faith calculation, it's unethical. I don't care if it's "obvious" that the scale is too small. Run a calculation and document it. Publish the results. Then if anything does go wrong later, we can look back and see where the calculation went wrong. If nothing goes wrong, we have a documented track record of success.
Wind power results in a net cost to the level of atmospheric energy. Any attempt to harness wind power extracts energy from the atmosphere and redirects it to human ends. On a small scale, that is no problem. On a large scale, like the bizarre concept represented in this post, the consequences on the planet would be unpredictable and eventually potentially harmful.
Inventors who do not take the unintended consequences of their inventions into account are prima facie unethical.
Unfortunately, the only real solution we have to the energy crisis is to reduce the human population on Earth. This can only happen with birth control in every corner of the globe.
As for the mall arrest, liberals and left-wingers have been upset for years that they can't picket, protest, parade, pamphleteer, or stand on a bench and speak to public issues in shopping malls. This has been an issue that I remember being talked about in the 90s. Page through old Utne Readers and "In These Times" magazines. A shopping mall does not want political candidates handing out campaign literature or "message t-shirts" distracting people from buying the latest load of crap they are selling. I think that's dumb of the mall owners, but it's their right to control their property.
A shopping mall in the US is private property. That's why protests are typically held in downtown areas where there are lots of sidewalks and public areas.
I don't know where you are getting your belief that free speech is eroded. If that were true, then why are sites like Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, and all the others allowed to continue? Why is Rosie O'Donnell on her American TV show spouting off on a 9/11 conspiracy theory? What about that crazy guy down in Austin? You'd think that if we were about to see a dictatorship in the US, that some of these people would end up in prison or jail. Yet they are all free to publish and speak whatever comes into their minds.
I think you are referring to the Al Qaeda fighters captured in Afghanistan. Under international rules, as fighters in a war, they must be wearing uniforms and have allegiance to a state. Those fighters did not follow those rules. Those rules are intended to protect civilians from becoming casualties. Because they broke the rules--the Geneva conventions--they were illegal combatants. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Bush Administration's interpretation of law concerning illegal combatants. Now the fighters--who were allied with the terrorists who committed the 9/11 mass murders--will be given hearings.
Secondly, there's the case of the "dirty bomber." That is one isolated case that is working its way through the courts. In the government's defense, if the man was really trying to pull off a dirty bomb, he had to be stopped, and that could also make him an illegal combatant since he swore loyalty to illegal Al Qaeda forces.
Let's say you are walking down the sidewalk in the US, as a US citizen. You are arrested for no reason. You file a writ of habeas corpus to be freed. If the President has suspended habeas, you stay in jail. In April of 2007, though, you would walk out of jail a free man because the writ of habeas corpus has not been suspended.
Abraham Lincoln did suspend the writ of habeas corpus. It's part of the history of the Civil War which was over 100 years ago.
BTW, habeas corpus is not related to freedom of expression which is supposed to be the topic of discussion here.
This is why I hate having these Internet discussions. Anyone with a contrary opinion (which is me) is a "troll" and is eventually banished. Not because of a law, but because of people's medieval, antediluvian attitudes.
Guess what. Call me a troll. Eventually I might be banned from Slashdot. But this is the Internet, and I can just start my own web site to give out my opinions, which I really do believe in by the way. At least as long as the Internet remains free. Which partially depends on ICANN not changing its policy even in the face of censorship demands from countries around the world like China, many citing hate speech laws that are rife in your beloved European Union.
I like how you call me a troll, which is an attempt to get me banned from this web site, because I support something you oppose, while you are simultaneously placing yourself in the position of defending free speech on the Internet. Do you sleep well at night?
As for the Patriot Act, if it really was anti-free speech, and the courts really weren't policing it, declaring certain clauses unconstitutional proving the system works, and Bushitler HallyMcChimpyburton has turned what was once an idyllic Utopia into "AmeriKKKa" according to the not-to-be-questioned Daily Kos, then guess what. Thanks to that scary Patriot Act, we haven't had any more 9/11s or radical jihadi bombings of public transportation, barbershops, lingerie stores, liberals, bars and newspapers, as they have in other countries. So either way, you win, and you look good doing it. Thanks for your suppot.
First, thank you for your well-stated reply. I must admit, however, that reading your post is giving me cognitive dissonance.
In your first paragraph, you say that the EU has drawn up "guidelines" for all of its spokesmen throughout the EU. In your second paragraph, you say that the EU is a decentralized union of countries. Well, is it united or decentralized? Can an Italian EU spokesman say the word "jihad" and keep his job if he says it in Ireland?
It is plain that the EU is intent on carrying out its hate speech policy contintent-wide. The next baby step is to ban criticism of the EU. This will be necessary to ram "EU II" down the throats of Europeans who increasingly resent the yoke of Brussels. I also note that I am not aware of any European country that does not have hate speech laws. Thus, it would be right to say that all Europe bans the vague concept of "hate speech," a legal censorship always threatening to snowball into unfettered tyranny.
I must take note that in Europe incest has more legal protection than freedom of expression. If this is the state of affairs that ICANN wishes to embrace with open arms even as it flees the USA, the capital of free speech, then may God help the Internet.
Finally, lest my condemnation of European law appear to be differently than my intent, I gladly have undertaken this post without any malicious thought toward yourself. I find you to be a decent and honorable fellow Slashdot poster, just one I happen to disagree with.
The guy with the t-shirt was ordered to leave a shopping mall. There is no freedom of speech in shopping malls. I happen to think that's bad, but it is private property. If you don't like their rules, you don't have to be on their property.
The mother of the GI killed in action was arrested for trespassing on private property.
In one of your links, somebody was arrested for waving a fake gun at traffic. Obviously, that is not something we should tolerate in a peaceful society anyway.
These are all petty offenses. No one was arrested for having an opinion, only for violating one of these extremely minor laws. No one got sent to the gulag or anything. Just take a chill pill.
Is the US perfect? No, but I wonder what would happen to somebody who waved a fake gun in traffic in Switzerland. Probably not laughed off by the gendarmes.
A few weeks ago a man in Portland, Oregon burned an American flag and then, literally, took a crap on it while it was burning. The entire incident was captured on videotape and sent around the Internet, generating discussion. The man was not arrested. What he did is legal in the US. Nearby people chanted "Die! Die, GI!" referring to American soldiers. They were also not arrested because that was also legal. Compare that level of freedom to the country of your choice.
In some legal cases, national security is a critical issue. Should a lawyer's brief always be available to the public, even if it contains details about active counterterrorist investigations? That's an edge question that is being debated in the US. If the US really did not have freedom of expression, not only would the lawyer's document be banned, but our discussion about it being banned would be banned. Obviously, our discussion is protected in the US by the First Amendment.
Handing over records is not related to freedom of expression. That is a search and seizure question.
The US Congress often passes dumb laws. Quite often they don't even read the bills they are voting on. As a result, new laws sometimes have a few clauses that violate the US Constitution. Then the ACLU or some lawyer comes along and challenges it before a judge. Eventually the law is ruled unconstitutional, sometimes because the law is just too vague.
The US is not a perfect country. Overall all, though, if you are ever charged with hate speech, pr0n, or the like, your best bet for protecting your rights is in the USA.
I take your point about the DMCA and patents. I believe we will see a broadening of "fair use" by Congress in th US in the next few years, and there will be reform of US patent law somehow.
Nevertheless, any move to interfere with ICANN or root servers on the basis of copyright or patent law would not go anywhere in the US.
The US has a solid track record of letting Internet domains exist without interference. I don't see why ICANN would want to abandon a system that works.
Secondly, I stress that if ICANN were to move to Switzerland, some the root servers would be dispersed to different countries, which would result in legal unpredictability.
I'm familiar with the Patriot Act. In no way does it reduce freedom of expression. There are critics who say that it takes away other freedoms, but not freedom of expression. Other critics say that the Patriot Act applies the same laws used against drug dealers to terrorists. In light of the 9/11 attacks, it's remarkable how little has changed in America.
The question is not one of "human rights." The question is what a government does.
The Soviet Union had wonderful free speech laws. It's just that if you spoke out against Communism, those laws were not worth anything.
Many governments have ratified the UDHR, and few have truly respected its guarantee on freedom of expression.
Outlawing hate speech in Europe contravenes free expression, regardless of history. The problem isn't that Nazis are stopped. The problem is the general chilling effect it has on free speech.
I take note that the EU recently announced the censoring of the following words: "jihad" and "terrorist." It is simply Orwellian to attempt to ban words. In the US, if you use a hateful word, you are not put in prison (unless you physically threatened someone, which is different). In other countries, there is no telling what the legal system might do if you simply exercise your human rights.
Censoring words and thought itself is only possible in Europe because of hate speech laws.
The best response to disgusting and vile speech, like racist speech, is not censorship. Instead, following the tradition of John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty," the best remedy is more speech. If you find someone's opinion repugnant, then say that out loud in a public forum. When lots of people do that, hatred is turned back.
I do not trust Switzerland or Europe or Canada or Japan or Australia or China or Iran or any other country to protect my free speech. Nor do I trust the undemocratic UN. The most freedom of expression coupled with the best protection of that freedom is in the US.
Switzerland has anti-hate speech laws. The US does not. Therefore, the US has more freedom of speech than Switzerland.
Without protection of US law, ICANN will be vulnerable to suit in other countries like Switzerland. Secondly, the physical location of the root servers would probably be moved to countries that also had lower-than-US freedom of expression laws. Let's say a root server was placed in the UAE. Legal pressure in that country might force the root server in that country to remove domain names from that server that the UAE government did not like, even though other root servers list them. For example, Planned Parenthood, Little Green Footballs, the ACLU, and Feminism.org. Over a period of time, you would have some chaos and a lot of repression.
I respect your opinion, but I guess I just don't agree that this would not be a plausible scenario.
The President is moving (via the Dept of Homeland Security) to eliminate those previous freedoms enjoyed by America.
Please be advised to put that aluminum foil hat back on. You might want to double-layer it first, though.
There has been no reduction of freedom of expression under the Bush Administration. If you disagree, please name one example of a law that has changed to this effect.
This is terrible news. The US has the best free expression laws in the world. In all other free countries, anyone can and is muzzled for violating "hate speech" laws which are purposefully kept vague and ambiguous. No one is imprisoned for having an opinion in the US. If ICANN leaves the protection of the USA, ICANN will have to start recognizing all the repressive and bizaree anti-free expression laws of other countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Europe, and revoke domain control. Controversial US web sites like Planned Parenthood and Little Green Footballs could have their domain names removed from the root servers due to international pressure on ICANN.
Secondly, it might not even matter. If ICANN does go international, it is likely the US would start its own set of root servers that would remain free, remain under protection of US law, and would quickly become dominant over ICANN.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you enable TRIM support on TrueOS to not kill the SSD?
To run the MSRT program you need to run mrt.exe. from the "run" dialog box or a command prompt in Windows.
You can directly download the latest mrt.exe
IPv6 has too much overhead. Drop it.
Here is a skeleton design of IPv7: take IPv4 exactly like it is today, and drop in IPv6 addresses.
Everything else, like encryption and IP addresses that move around the Internet, can be proposed for IPv8.
Evolution is not currently good on Windows.
Let's review. Firefox comes out of nowhere and forces MS to upgrade IE. With better browsers, Google can create Gmail. Google rewards Mozilla by paying a huge amount of money for being the default search engine in Firefox. One problem. Thunderbird competes with Gmail. Perhaps not coincidentally, Mozilla now kicks Thunderbird out of the nest. The new entity, Mailco, takes the remnants of Eudora (Penelope) with it, clearing the decks for a Gmail vs. Outlook showdown.
Of course, if you want standards-based e-mail, you can't use Outlook. The IMAP implementation is horribly broken to goad users into using Exchange and MAPI. If you want personal computing based e-mail, you can't use Gmail (a web app reminiscient of being on a mainframe terminal). This is especially sensitive if you are in a business that might compete with Google, since it would be easy for them to do something untoward (regardless of whether they actually would).
Now OOo steps up to partner with Mailco and Thunderbird.
So maybe there is a future for standards-based e-mail in personal computing after all. I hope so.
The solution is to increase profit per unit. That is done by increasing unit price, to about $50 per album.
How do you get a consumers to buy music albums for $50 a piece? Take a page from the boxed set and extend the concept.
Ok, now that I've saved you, please cut me in on the action. No, really!
If the inventor builds it without running a good faith calculation, it's unethical. I don't care if it's "obvious" that the scale is too small. Run a calculation and document it. Publish the results. Then if anything does go wrong later, we can look back and see where the calculation went wrong. If nothing goes wrong, we have a documented track record of success.
Wind power results in a net cost to the level of atmospheric energy. Any attempt to harness wind power extracts energy from the atmosphere and redirects it to human ends. On a small scale, that is no problem. On a large scale, like the bizarre concept represented in this post, the consequences on the planet would be unpredictable and eventually potentially harmful.
Inventors who do not take the unintended consequences of their inventions into account are prima facie unethical.
Unfortunately, the only real solution we have to the energy crisis is to reduce the human population on Earth. This can only happen with birth control in every corner of the globe.
Meanwhile, in Germany you have to get permission from the government before you name your baby. In the US, the government doesn't own you.
As for the mall arrest, liberals and left-wingers have been upset for years that they can't picket, protest, parade, pamphleteer, or stand on a bench and speak to public issues in shopping malls. This has been an issue that I remember being talked about in the 90s. Page through old Utne Readers and "In These Times" magazines. A shopping mall does not want political candidates handing out campaign literature or "message t-shirts" distracting people from buying the latest load of crap they are selling. I think that's dumb of the mall owners, but it's their right to control their property.
A shopping mall in the US is private property. That's why protests are typically held in downtown areas where there are lots of sidewalks and public areas.
I don't know where you are getting your belief that free speech is eroded. If that were true, then why are sites like Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, and all the others allowed to continue? Why is Rosie O'Donnell on her American TV show spouting off on a 9/11 conspiracy theory? What about that crazy guy down in Austin? You'd think that if we were about to see a dictatorship in the US, that some of these people would end up in prison or jail. Yet they are all free to publish and speak whatever comes into their minds.
The President has not suspended habeas corpus.
I think you are referring to the Al Qaeda fighters captured in Afghanistan. Under international rules, as fighters in a war, they must be wearing uniforms and have allegiance to a state. Those fighters did not follow those rules. Those rules are intended to protect civilians from becoming casualties. Because they broke the rules--the Geneva conventions--they were illegal combatants. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Bush Administration's interpretation of law concerning illegal combatants. Now the fighters--who were allied with the terrorists who committed the 9/11 mass murders--will be given hearings.
Secondly, there's the case of the "dirty bomber." That is one isolated case that is working its way through the courts. In the government's defense, if the man was really trying to pull off a dirty bomb, he had to be stopped, and that could also make him an illegal combatant since he swore loyalty to illegal Al Qaeda forces.
Let's say you are walking down the sidewalk in the US, as a US citizen. You are arrested for no reason. You file a writ of habeas corpus to be freed. If the President has suspended habeas, you stay in jail. In April of 2007, though, you would walk out of jail a free man because the writ of habeas corpus has not been suspended.
Abraham Lincoln did suspend the writ of habeas corpus. It's part of the history of the Civil War which was over 100 years ago.
BTW, habeas corpus is not related to freedom of expression which is supposed to be the topic of discussion here.
This is why I hate having these Internet discussions. Anyone with a contrary opinion (which is me) is a "troll" and is eventually banished. Not because of a law, but because of people's medieval, antediluvian attitudes.
Guess what. Call me a troll. Eventually I might be banned from Slashdot. But this is the Internet, and I can just start my own web site to give out my opinions, which I really do believe in by the way. At least as long as the Internet remains free. Which partially depends on ICANN not changing its policy even in the face of censorship demands from countries around the world like China, many citing hate speech laws that are rife in your beloved European Union.
I like how you call me a troll, which is an attempt to get me banned from this web site, because I support something you oppose, while you are simultaneously placing yourself in the position of defending free speech on the Internet. Do you sleep well at night?
As for the Patriot Act, if it really was anti-free speech, and the courts really weren't policing it, declaring certain clauses unconstitutional proving the system works, and Bushitler HallyMcChimpyburton has turned what was once an idyllic Utopia into "AmeriKKKa" according to the not-to-be-questioned Daily Kos, then guess what. Thanks to that scary Patriot Act, we haven't had any more 9/11s or radical jihadi bombings of public transportation, barbershops, lingerie stores, liberals, bars and newspapers, as they have in other countries. So either way, you win, and you look good doing it. Thanks for your suppot.
STANDARDTIME.COM SAYS: If we are saving energy let's go year round with Daylight Savings Time. If we are not saving energy let's drop Daylight Savings Time!
Enough of this daylight time, reset-the-clocks insanity. Just stop the madness.
First, thank you for your well-stated reply. I must admit, however, that reading your post is giving me cognitive dissonance.
In your first paragraph, you say that the EU has drawn up "guidelines" for all of its spokesmen throughout the EU. In your second paragraph, you say that the EU is a decentralized union of countries. Well, is it united or decentralized? Can an Italian EU spokesman say the word "jihad" and keep his job if he says it in Ireland?
It is plain that the EU is intent on carrying out its hate speech policy contintent-wide. The next baby step is to ban criticism of the EU. This will be necessary to ram "EU II" down the throats of Europeans who increasingly resent the yoke of Brussels. I also note that I am not aware of any European country that does not have hate speech laws. Thus, it would be right to say that all Europe bans the vague concept of "hate speech," a legal censorship always threatening to snowball into unfettered tyranny.
I must take note that in Europe incest has more legal protection than freedom of expression. If this is the state of affairs that ICANN wishes to embrace with open arms even as it flees the USA, the capital of free speech, then may God help the Internet.
Finally, lest my condemnation of European law appear to be differently than my intent, I gladly have undertaken this post without any malicious thought toward yourself. I find you to be a decent and honorable fellow Slashdot poster, just one I happen to disagree with.
The guy with the t-shirt was ordered to leave a shopping mall. There is no freedom of speech in shopping malls. I happen to think that's bad, but it is private property. If you don't like their rules, you don't have to be on their property.
The mother of the GI killed in action was arrested for trespassing on private property.
In one of your links, somebody was arrested for waving a fake gun at traffic. Obviously, that is not something we should tolerate in a peaceful society anyway.
These are all petty offenses. No one was arrested for having an opinion, only for violating one of these extremely minor laws. No one got sent to the gulag or anything. Just take a chill pill.
Is the US perfect? No, but I wonder what would happen to somebody who waved a fake gun in traffic in Switzerland. Probably not laughed off by the gendarmes.
In some legal cases, national security is a critical issue. Should a lawyer's brief always be available to the public, even if it contains details about active counterterrorist investigations? That's an edge question that is being debated in the US. If the US really did not have freedom of expression, not only would the lawyer's document be banned, but our discussion about it being banned would be banned. Obviously, our discussion is protected in the US by the First Amendment.
Handing over records is not related to freedom of expression. That is a search and seizure question.
The US Congress often passes dumb laws. Quite often they don't even read the bills they are voting on. As a result, new laws sometimes have a few clauses that violate the US Constitution. Then the ACLU or some lawyer comes along and challenges it before a judge. Eventually the law is ruled unconstitutional, sometimes because the law is just too vague.
The US is not a perfect country. Overall all, though, if you are ever charged with hate speech, pr0n, or the like, your best bet for protecting your rights is in the USA.
I take your point about the DMCA and patents. I believe we will see a broadening of "fair use" by Congress in th US in the next few years, and there will be reform of US patent law somehow.
Nevertheless, any move to interfere with ICANN or root servers on the basis of copyright or patent law would not go anywhere in the US.
The US has a solid track record of letting Internet domains exist without interference. I don't see why ICANN would want to abandon a system that works.
Secondly, I stress that if ICANN were to move to Switzerland, some the root servers would be dispersed to different countries, which would result in legal unpredictability.
I'm familiar with the Patriot Act. In no way does it reduce freedom of expression. There are critics who say that it takes away other freedoms, but not freedom of expression. Other critics say that the Patriot Act applies the same laws used against drug dealers to terrorists. In light of the 9/11 attacks, it's remarkable how little has changed in America.
The question is not one of "human rights." The question is what a government does.
The Soviet Union had wonderful free speech laws. It's just that if you spoke out against Communism, those laws were not worth anything.
Many governments have ratified the UDHR, and few have truly respected its guarantee on freedom of expression.
Outlawing hate speech in Europe contravenes free expression, regardless of history. The problem isn't that Nazis are stopped. The problem is the general chilling effect it has on free speech.
I take note that the EU recently announced the censoring of the following words: "jihad" and "terrorist." It is simply Orwellian to attempt to ban words. In the US, if you use a hateful word, you are not put in prison (unless you physically threatened someone, which is different). In other countries, there is no telling what the legal system might do if you simply exercise your human rights.
Censoring words and thought itself is only possible in Europe because of hate speech laws.
The best response to disgusting and vile speech, like racist speech, is not censorship. Instead, following the tradition of John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty," the best remedy is more speech. If you find someone's opinion repugnant, then say that out loud in a public forum. When lots of people do that, hatred is turned back.
I do not trust Switzerland or Europe or Canada or Japan or Australia or China or Iran or any other country to protect my free speech. Nor do I trust the undemocratic UN. The most freedom of expression coupled with the best protection of that freedom is in the US.
Switzerland has anti-hate speech laws. The US does not. Therefore, the US has more freedom of speech than Switzerland.
Without protection of US law, ICANN will be vulnerable to suit in other countries like Switzerland. Secondly, the physical location of the root servers would probably be moved to countries that also had lower-than-US freedom of expression laws. Let's say a root server was placed in the UAE. Legal pressure in that country might force the root server in that country to remove domain names from that server that the UAE government did not like, even though other root servers list them. For example, Planned Parenthood, Little Green Footballs, the ACLU, and Feminism.org. Over a period of time, you would have some chaos and a lot of repression.
I respect your opinion, but I guess I just don't agree that this would not be a plausible scenario.
Please be advised to put that aluminum foil hat back on. You might want to double-layer it first, though.
There has been no reduction of freedom of expression under the Bush Administration. If you disagree, please name one example of a law that has changed to this effect.
This is terrible news. The US has the best free expression laws in the world. In all other free countries, anyone can and is muzzled for violating "hate speech" laws which are purposefully kept vague and ambiguous. No one is imprisoned for having an opinion in the US. If ICANN leaves the protection of the USA, ICANN will have to start recognizing all the repressive and bizaree anti-free expression laws of other countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Europe, and revoke domain control. Controversial US web sites like Planned Parenthood and Little Green Footballs could have their domain names removed from the root servers due to international pressure on ICANN.
Secondly, it might not even matter. If ICANN does go international, it is likely the US would start its own set of root servers that would remain free, remain under protection of US law, and would quickly become dominant over ICANN.
I'm in coach. The guy behind me starts his laptop and surfs the web. How far is the Wi-Fi antenna on his laptop from my head?
Not really far enough for my taste.
When I type in front of my laptop, the antenna is over 15 inches (approx 37 cm) away.
(Laptop wi-fi antennnae are usually on the top part of the lid.)
It's not true unless it's posted to Slashdot three times.
The impact on Novell, in short: no change from GPLv2.
Novell haters lose.