Re:If the new system were subject to popular contr
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, however, with the size of the web, and the DNS system, Im afraid that Mark Twain's eerie words would come to bear: "If you want to make sure nothing gets done, form a committee. "
That's why we need direct vote without committees. Use digital signatures from verisign a 1-1 correspondence between voters and votes.
If the new system were subject to popular control
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
A manifesto
1. All domain names are owned by the internet users (tm), not NSI, nor the companies that are using them. 2. Large capitalization e-companies like Amazon rent domain names for extaordinary amounts of money, so we the customers, the internet users, get back a lot of the money we deserve without resorting to running get-paid-while-surfing schemes. 3. For the cases when the majority gets disgruntled by monopolistic practices, or when companies don't bow to popular pressure to open up (e.g. ebay or icq), or for the cases when the community can build a better replacement for a site that's holding back the natural development of internet for the sole purpose of making billions, we reserve the right to revoke any domain name with a popular referendum a la USENET. 4. We restrain ourselves from making excessive use of our powers over companies because we want the alternative DNS system to function. 5. People may not rent, sell or delegate any of their decision-making powers, and the new DNS shall remain forever under popular democratic control.
You or I could not build a jet. We could not develop the next wonder drug. We could not construct a skyscraper. You know why? Because we don't have that kind of money
And WHY exactly don't we have that kind of money? Because big business sucked it off us. Think about it a little.
, and we can't pool that kind of manpower. It takes a business or a government to pool the resources to accomplish things like this -- and in nine out of ten cases, I'd rather have the businesses doing it.
That's exactly why big business (tm) gives us presidential candidates one can only laugh at; so that people like you and I will prefer to have our society run by big business instead. The pitty though is that big business will own society in order to run it, and that's most often a one-way route, as there are actually laws against taking back our property from the rich.
Post the file on USENET from a terminal in an internet cafe. Wear a plastic bag over you head while you're there, and have you car parked a few squares away from the cafe.
The proposed european legislation on privacy forbids EU companies from exchanging personal data with companies located in countries with very lax privacy laws, so it wouldn't be so easy for european companies to deal with DoubleClick should it relocate to Anguilla to continue violating our privacy.
I guess they let 100 machines run for a couple of weeks, recorded the number of times they crashed, and statistically infered with certainty 95% that the uptime is somewhere between 8.5 and 9.5 years. That would presume that uptime has an exponential distribution, meaning that whether a crash occurs or not would have nothing to do with how long the machine has been up already. Therefore such a method would not account for hard disk or other component failure due to age.
The site even considers liberal laws to be stupid
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 1
In Denmark, "It is not illegal to attempt to escape from prison. If caught you are required to finish the remainder of your term."
This prevents hostage situations by fugitives, it is based on the premise that it is only natural behaviour to pursue your freedom, and claims that it is the responsibility of the authorities to make prisons secure.
I was wondering if it right to call Allende's government Communist (let alone "regime"). I read a lot articles from US papers last year, following the arrest of Pinochet in Britain, and nowhere did I read Allende to have done anything different than what was happening in France, Greece in the '80s, Sweden and other european countries. Even 'expropriating' natural resources from their "legal owners" was done in one way or another in many non-communist countries (make laws to backrupt the owner, then take his mine - or impose 90% taxes (Sweden) ).
Also in a country with a land distribution problem such as Chile was, where few people owned the land and the remaining rural population had virtually become slaves (see 'House of Spirits' film) I think it's the property model itself which needs violence to be enforced, rather than the change of the system. Imagine, for instance, an indian farmer keeping a bit more of the food he grew than what he needs to survive. Hardly violent. On the other hand, the police which will throw him out of the land that his family has been living on for generations, is using violent force.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why we need direct vote without committees. Use digital signatures from verisign a 1-1 correspondence between voters and votes.
A manifesto
1. All domain names are owned by the internet users (tm), not NSI, nor the companies that are using them.
2. Large capitalization e-companies like Amazon rent domain names for extaordinary amounts of money, so we the customers, the internet users, get back a lot of the money we deserve without resorting to running get-paid-while-surfing schemes.
3. For the cases when the majority gets disgruntled by monopolistic practices, or when companies don't bow to popular pressure to open up (e.g. ebay or icq), or for the cases when the community can build a better replacement for a site that's holding back the natural development of internet for the sole purpose of making billions, we reserve the right to revoke any domain name with a popular referendum a la USENET.
4. We restrain ourselves from making excessive use of our powers over companies because we want the alternative DNS system to function.
5. People may not rent, sell or delegate any of their decision-making powers, and the new DNS shall remain forever under popular democratic control.
Alex
They've been stealing the money every day. They steal it before they give us the paycheck and after.
And WHY exactly don't we have that kind of money? Because big business sucked it off us. Think about it a little.
, and we can't pool that kind of manpower. It takes a business or a government to pool the resources to accomplish things like this -- and in nine out of ten cases, I'd rather have the businesses doing it.
That's exactly why big business (tm) gives us presidential candidates one can only laugh at; so that people like you and I will prefer to have our society run by big business instead. The pitty though is that big business will own society in order to run it, and that's most often a one-way route, as there are actually laws against taking back our property from the rich.
Incredible, isn't it?
> So you get Spam -- now what? It's usually difficult to trace All you have to do is visit www.spamcop.net - Alexander
Post the file on USENET from a terminal in an internet cafe. Wear a plastic bag over you head while you're there, and have you car parked a few squares away from the cafe.
Spending money to solve world hunger is NOT one of the reasons why space projects are underfunded. Hence, this was an irrelevent point.
The proposed european legislation on privacy forbids EU companies from exchanging personal data with companies located in countries with very lax privacy laws, so it wouldn't be so easy for european companies to deal with DoubleClick should it relocate to Anguilla to continue violating our privacy.
I guess they let 100 machines run for a couple of weeks, recorded the number of times they crashed, and statistically infered with certainty 95% that the uptime is somewhere between 8.5 and 9.5 years. That would presume that uptime has an exponential distribution, meaning that whether a crash occurs or not would have nothing to do with how long the machine has been up already. Therefore such a method would not account for hard disk or other component failure due to age.
This prevents hostage situations by fugitives, it is based on the premise that it is only natural behaviour to pursue your freedom, and claims that it is the responsibility of the authorities to make prisons secure.
Also in a country with a land distribution problem such as Chile was, where few people owned the land and the remaining rural population had virtually become slaves (see 'House of Spirits' film) I think it's the property model itself which needs violence to be enforced, rather than the change of the system. Imagine, for instance, an indian farmer keeping a bit more of the food he grew than what he needs to survive. Hardly violent. On the other hand, the police which will throw him out of the land that his family has been living on for generations, is using violent force.