I am a linguist and sort of agree with you. From the point of view of my discipline, it hurts me to know how fast languages die (= last speaker dies) and that even with optimal funding the linguist community will not be able to keep up with cataloguing all nearly extinct languages. First of all, since most languages do not have a writing system, when a language dies often a whole collection of stories and tales dies with it, too. Second, from a more theoretical perspective, it is kind of sad that problematic anglo-centric theories could become relatively adequate in the near future just because most counterexamples have disappeared. Many theoretically important languages like e.g. Warlpiri have rapidly dwindling speaker communities.
However, as someone who has been changing country several times in Europe, I'd personally prefer if everybody in the world would talk English (which is not my mother tongue) and English was a universal secondary administrative language. Linguistic borders impose artificial cultural restrictions that in my honest opinion do not have any particular benefit in our modern society. (In my experience, the smaller the speaker community, the more nationalistic they become about their culture and language. However, in reality these people are already part of a global culture anyway and their cultural heritage usually just consists of a few strange rites, unusual meals and customes that they themselves are finding mor ridiculous than endorsing them.)
Speaker communities that became the victims of genocide, colonialism, christianism, or cultural hegemony sometimes fight for the right to teach their language and culture in schools and to preserve their culture. While this is an understandable reaction and sometimes justified, because often languages are discriminated or prohibited only to oppress political and ethnics groups, in many cases keeping your culture and language is not the right way and doesn't work in the long run anyway. That's easy to see in Australia and the US, but also applies to many other places.
So yes, we should preserve languages, but on a more personal level I don't see much good in trying to preserve linguistic diversity.
Shouldn't your kid just read whatever he wants? Okay, perhaps you want to exclude erotic novels and horror stories, although I doubt very much that these could do any harm. When I was about 7 or 8 years old I read Lem's Eden and it absolutely fascinated me. Haven't read it again for quite a while but it's still one of my favorites. At age 7-12 I then read almost everything else by Lem and all the other classics like Asimov, Bradbury, Heinlein, etc. of my fathers collection. Oh, and of course also loved the Little Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.
When I say your kid can read whatever he wants, I assume that you'll also have the time to talk about it, of course.
...younger listeners are increasingly opting to stream music for free rather than own it.
Just a small correction. For its pretty clear that if the "young listeners" were billed for the music, most of them would probably opt for owning music instead of constantly repaying for it.
You should watch the outstanding documentary "Taliban: Behind the Masks" It won't give you a full answer to your question, but perhaps a partial one. Ignorance plays a crucial role.
Nowadays, with all the media and the Net, people often forget how different life can be in remote places. Then again, from what I remember of the documentary, the taliban themselves do not seem to be so different from us even if they have a wholly different frame of mind.
I think we agree much more than it might seem, a few remarks though:
That's the whole point of whistleblowing, that position or power doesn't mean you shouldn't be held accountable for wrongdoing.
Historically, whistleblowers have not been held accountable for their wrongdoings in the US. So there is certainly a new wind coming from the US administration this time.
Stop trying to make an emotional appeal against reason, your argument here is "you shouldn't face questioning for a crime if you think it's just because they're 'harassing' you". "But what if it was you?" isn't a point, it's a fallacy.
It's not an emotional appeal. Personally, I don't like or dislike Assange. I never have met him. However, I'm worried about the story in general, because it has the letters "CIA" written all over. That's, of course, a hunch that (almost) nobody can back up by evidence, but it's not an emotional judgement either. It's based on knowledge of historical facts; I like reading history books from time to time.
Back to the topic. Most countries will usually not extradite a person unless the country demanding it can provide at least some evidence that the crime the person has committed would also be a crime in the country they are currently in, not in the country that demands their extradition. And that's a very good thing, if you ask me.
For example, the US will NOT extradite a US or foreign resident living in the US to China for having done something that would be completely legal in the US and certainly also not for questioning him about that matter. Moreover, the potential maximum sentence in the country the person is extradited to must be within reasonable bounds. For example, Germany will not extradite someone to the US in a murder case unless the US guarantees that the suspect will not be sentenced to death.
Are you actually arguing that you shouldn't be held accountable for a crime committed in one country, if it isn't illegal in others? That's ridiculous.
That's not ridiculous, it's the norm. In other words, you can get extradited for acts that would not constitute a crime in the country you are in, but that is the exception. Or do you think UK law says that Iran women should be extradited from the UK for being infidel? Or Russians who spied in the US should be extradited to the US?
Arguably, one problem of Assange is that he is not of British nationality. Most countries protect their own citizens much stricter against extradition than foreign residents.
To give you a sense of the proportions in the "Swedish rape" case, recently the FBI tracked down George Wright in Portugal, where he was living for a long time. He was wanted for murder, escape from prison, and hijacking an airplane in the US for a very long time, and he was not extradited. Admittedly, if Sweden had asked, they would probably have said yes. (Like other huge countries, the US doesn't have a particularly good reputation for holding up the rule of law and principles of due process.)
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. People know this stuff. Some of your reasoning is kind of flawed, though.
Naah, totally impossible. I'm a logician.;-)
While Interpol's involvement was questionable
That's all I was saying. No, I do not believe that Interpol is run by the CIA. But as you have admitted, too, in this alleged rape case there were quite a number of oddities. It is not far-fetched to think that the completely unneccessary Interpol involvement was due to decent amount of political pressure or 'behind the curtain' channels.
And it certainly isn't any surprise that a prosecutor who didn't want to prosecute would be replaced with one who did.
At least in the countries in Europe I know closely from living there, that's highly unusual. If a prosecutor thinks a case i
I'm truly sorry but I really cannot put all my personal data on dozens of different "social networks", because I do not even have the time to keep my professional webpage up to date.
So what you're implying is that if you would visit China and criticize the Chinese government, you ought to get extradited from another country to China "for questioning" if the Chinese authority want you? And you wouldn't consider this harrassment or try to fight against it?
You do realize that what Assange could be accused for in Sweden does not count as rape or any other crime in all other countries of Europe, the US, and in fact in practically all countries of the world? That the reason he is being wanted for questioning is because he would very likely not be extradited to Sweden if he was wanted for the actual "crime", since sleeping without condome is not generally punishable by UK law?
There are numerous other oddities in this case. Did you know that Assange was searched by Interpol, even though Interpol would normally never persecute such as case? A fact which made many professionals in the field shake their head in disbelief. Here is what Interpol normally works on: terrorism, organized crime, crimes against humanity, environmental crime, genocide, war crimes, piracy, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, computer crime, intellectual property crime and corruption. No, "sleeping without condome" is not on the list and neither is "rape". Not to speak of the prosecutor in charge in Sweden and the dubious way the original prosecutor was removed from the case for pointing out that there is no case... Or should perhaps the fact be mentioned that Assange offered many times to answer any questions via online conference under supervision by British police, but Swedish prosecutors consistently declined the offer?
I call that bullshit.Your theoretical defense wouldn't even make sense if absolutely anybody could pay extra for a special QoS tag, because not everybody has the money to pay for it -- smaller companies and makers of, say, free VoIP software, and virtually all p2p software would be left out. But it comes worse, in reality even the companies who'd pay the ransom wouldn't be treated equally, competition would be locked out in secret trade agreements and coalitions, and very likely certain services like movie streaming would be restricted to a few (illegal) cartels. Basically, what the telcos/network provider want is a money milking machine, a layered Internet tax system with all kinds of checkpoints where money is deduced.
The result would be comparable to way taxes in the middle age.
But I cannot see in any way why a consumer would not WANT to be able to pay for some premium network service with guaranteed levels of quality for one application (and by that I mean in the network sense) rather than having to pay for an entire internet connection with much greater speed and quality.
It is technically impossible to single out one application and treat it in a privileged way without using deep packet inspection, deliberate bandwith throttling, closed communication protocols with lots of encryption and security by obscurity, and a whole bunch of other things that limit the Internet and make it only feasible for global players and large companies to offer certain end-to-end services.
Despite of what you might think, you do NOT want that. (Perhaps you think you want it because you do not have a firm grasp of how TCP/IP works?)
As noble as the underlying motives might be, I simply find it hard to believe that bullying souvereign nation states or their governments can have positive net effects in the long turn.
Perhaps you could develop a third-party library for video games, something that uses CPU and (optionally) GPU as well, be it physics, game AI, or graphics related. You could develop it as a hobby like before and later see how sales go.
For example, I have seen SpeedTree licensed in many games including AA+ titles, so they must make some money. A planet engine providing huge, planet-sized playgrounds would be another example. Or, if you don't want to avoid graphics altogether you could write a massive, highly portable and configurable AI library, i.e. tens of thousands of actors following complex plans in parallel.
Right, because OSX with "TattleTale" would surely have prevented the theft and RMS could never have jammed together a shell script with the same functionality as "TattleTale" within half an hour if he had wanted to.
I've taken a look at dozens or even hundreds of languages over the past 20 years, it's sort of a hobby, and I'm pretty sure that the following point are key to the success of a language:
1. Huge number of available third party libraries and ease of installing them (batteries included).
2. Existence of a working cross-platform GUI library with native widgets. [desktop or mobile applications only]
3. Easy deployment of executables, good IDE and toolchain support (e.g. RAD GUI tools, build automation, etc.)
4. Good, friendly, and non-elitist community
5. Speed and low memory use (often go hand-in-hand, even though theoretically the opposite should be the case)
Point 2 is only relevant for desktop applications, of course. Many otherwise great languages fail because they lack 1 and 2.
I think you're just nitpicking. The OP pointed out that despite their crappy drivers AMD is still the better alternative if you have to choose a graphics card. Contrary to what you think that's both informative -- though arguably not very much, since most people knew that already -- and relevant to the point about AMD you've made.
The right way is to work about 20 minutes while sitting and then another 20 minutes while standing.
For that you'll nedd one of those desks whose height can be adjusted easily on the fly. Just like ergonomical office chairs they are extremely expensive. I've had one when a was working at University in Scandinavia.
There is no "just world fallacy". Whoever wrote that article on Wikipedia does not know the meaning of the word "fallacy" and is in need of some training in logic and argumentation theory.
You might call it an implausible claim, a hypothesis that is not sufficiently backed up by evidence, or perhaps even a religious belief. Neither of these are fallacies.
Why not just create a separate network for children only? With separate browsers, separate trafffic?
The internet is no place for children anyway. It should be 18+ (or 16+, or whatever politicians and their voters desire) like alcohol and tobacco, and it could simply be prohibited for parents to allow their children to be on the "regular" internet in the same sense as it is prohibited to hand out large quantities of vodka to 8 year old kids. I fail to see why adults should be punished, surveilled, and harrassed by authorities just because of a few irresponsible parents. Technically, it's no problem, you can even build the net on top of the regular internet, make phones and tablets with "kid network" browsers (even more sales!), etc.
The added benefit of separate networks would be that kids can no longer look up their homework solutions and there are no longer whiney little pricks on game servers for 18+ games.
"The escalating battle over maps demonstrates the importance of cloud apps to tech companies' larger strategies."
Stupid me, for a moment I thought the battle demonstrates the importance of location-sensitive map applications and not of "cloud" apps in general. There is a technical reason for map applications to be client/server-based, since world-wide high-resolution map data is many terrabytes in size. There is no sound technical reason for server-side data storage in the vast majority of other "cloud" apps, except for the purpose of collecting user-date, of course.
It's just a hunch, but my guess is that Apple is planning or at least contemplating to move to a complete whitelist approach to security for both the iOS (where it is already implemented almost completely) and OS X. This would drastically improve security if Apple were able to write programs without exploitable bugs. Since like every other company Apple is not able to write such programs and in any case uses the wrong architecture, tools and programming languages for it, in reality it does not affect security very much.
Luckily, no matter whether they act on behalf of the US or the UN, many if not all politicians are technically inept and primarily think about the domain name system when they think about "controlling" the Internet. They already have the ability to wiretap, seize equipment, etc. and now they are simply exploring more convenient ways to implement cencorship. As others have pointed out, this is primarily a debate about who should have the power to censor the Net by "seizing" domain names.
Hopefully someone comes up with a distributed domain name system that has acceptable performance and can be integrated into browsers easily, e.g. via a plugin that could become a default later. It's a technical solution to a social/political problem, but since corrupt politicians and IP instituitions who use methods similar to those of organized crime will not go away overnight, it might still be the best way to solve the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a linguist and sort of agree with you. From the point of view of my discipline, it hurts me to know how fast languages die (= last speaker dies) and that even with optimal funding the linguist community will not be able to keep up with cataloguing all nearly extinct languages. First of all, since most languages do not have a writing system, when a language dies often a whole collection of stories and tales dies with it, too. Second, from a more theoretical perspective, it is kind of sad that problematic anglo-centric theories could become relatively adequate in the near future just because most counterexamples have disappeared. Many theoretically important languages like e.g. Warlpiri have rapidly dwindling speaker communities.
However, as someone who has been changing country several times in Europe, I'd personally prefer if everybody in the world would talk English (which is not my mother tongue) and English was a universal secondary administrative language. Linguistic borders impose artificial cultural restrictions that in my honest opinion do not have any particular benefit in our modern society. (In my experience, the smaller the speaker community, the more nationalistic they become about their culture and language. However, in reality these people are already part of a global culture anyway and their cultural heritage usually just consists of a few strange rites, unusual meals and customes that they themselves are finding mor ridiculous than endorsing them.)
Speaker communities that became the victims of genocide, colonialism, christianism, or cultural hegemony sometimes fight for the right to teach their language and culture in schools and to preserve their culture. While this is an understandable reaction and sometimes justified, because often languages are discriminated or prohibited only to oppress political and ethnics groups, in many cases keeping your culture and language is not the right way and doesn't work in the long run anyway. That's easy to see in Australia and the US, but also applies to many other places.
So yes, we should preserve languages, but on a more personal level I don't see much good in trying to preserve linguistic diversity.
Shouldn't your kid just read whatever he wants? Okay, perhaps you want to exclude erotic novels and horror stories, although I doubt very much that these could do any harm. When I was about 7 or 8 years old I read Lem's Eden and it absolutely fascinated me. Haven't read it again for quite a while but it's still one of my favorites. At age 7-12 I then read almost everything else by Lem and all the other classics like Asimov, Bradbury, Heinlein, etc. of my fathers collection. Oh, and of course also loved the Little Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.
When I say your kid can read whatever he wants, I assume that you'll also have the time to talk about it, of course.
Basically, this is about whether the moon will in future display a gigantic Coca-Cola sign or yellow stars on an equally red background.
Personally, I don't really care.
I would only allow .sex domains, all other TLDs will be deleted.
...younger listeners are increasingly opting to stream music for free rather than own it.
Just a small correction. For its pretty clear that if the "young listeners" were billed for the music, most of them would probably opt for owning music instead of constantly repaying for it.
You should watch the outstanding documentary "Taliban: Behind the Masks" It won't give you a full answer to your question, but perhaps a partial one. Ignorance plays a crucial role.
Nowadays, with all the media and the Net, people often forget how different life can be in remote places. Then again, from what I remember of the documentary, the taliban themselves do not seem to be so different from us even if they have a wholly different frame of mind.
I think we agree much more than it might seem, a few remarks though:
That's the whole point of whistleblowing, that position or power doesn't mean you shouldn't be held accountable for wrongdoing.
Historically, whistleblowers have not been held accountable for their wrongdoings in the US. So there is certainly a new wind coming from the US administration this time.
Stop trying to make an emotional appeal against reason, your argument here is "you shouldn't face questioning for a crime if you think it's just because they're 'harassing' you". "But what if it was you?" isn't a point, it's a fallacy.
It's not an emotional appeal. Personally, I don't like or dislike Assange. I never have met him. However, I'm worried about the story in general, because it has the letters "CIA" written all over. That's, of course, a hunch that (almost) nobody can back up by evidence, but it's not an emotional judgement either. It's based on knowledge of historical facts; I like reading history books from time to time.
Back to the topic. Most countries will usually not extradite a person unless the country demanding it can provide at least some evidence that the crime the person has committed would also be a crime in the country they are currently in, not in the country that demands their extradition. And that's a very good thing, if you ask me.
For example, the US will NOT extradite a US or foreign resident living in the US to China for having done something that would be completely legal in the US and certainly also not for questioning him about that matter. Moreover, the potential maximum sentence in the country the person is extradited to must be within reasonable bounds. For example, Germany will not extradite someone to the US in a murder case unless the US guarantees that the suspect will not be sentenced to death.
Are you actually arguing that you shouldn't be held accountable for a crime committed in one country, if it isn't illegal in others? That's ridiculous.
That's not ridiculous, it's the norm. In other words, you can get extradited for acts that would not constitute a crime in the country you are in, but that is the exception. Or do you think UK law says that Iran women should be extradited from the UK for being infidel? Or Russians who spied in the US should be extradited to the US?
Arguably, one problem of Assange is that he is not of British nationality. Most countries protect their own citizens much stricter against extradition than foreign residents.
To give you a sense of the proportions in the "Swedish rape" case, recently the FBI tracked down George Wright in Portugal, where he was living for a long time. He was wanted for murder, escape from prison, and hijacking an airplane in the US for a very long time, and he was not extradited. Admittedly, if Sweden had asked, they would probably have said yes. (Like other huge countries, the US doesn't have a particularly good reputation for holding up the rule of law and principles of due process.)
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. People know this stuff. Some of your reasoning is kind of flawed, though.
Naah, totally impossible. I'm a logician. ;-)
While Interpol's involvement was questionable
That's all I was saying. No, I do not believe that Interpol is run by the CIA. But as you have admitted, too, in this alleged rape case there were quite a number of oddities. It is not far-fetched to think that the completely unneccessary Interpol involvement was due to decent amount of political pressure or 'behind the curtain' channels.
And it certainly isn't any surprise that a prosecutor who didn't want to prosecute would be replaced with one who did.
At least in the countries in Europe I know closely from living there, that's highly unusual. If a prosecutor thinks a case i
Dear folks at Microsoft and everywhere else,
I'm truly sorry but I really cannot put all my personal data on dozens of different "social networks", because I do not even have the time to keep my professional webpage up to date.
Tip: Try inventing something new and exciting.
Best,
aaaaaaargh!
So what you're implying is that if you would visit China and criticize the Chinese government, you ought to get extradited from another country to China "for questioning" if the Chinese authority want you? And you wouldn't consider this harrassment or try to fight against it?
You do realize that what Assange could be accused for in Sweden does not count as rape or any other crime in all other countries of Europe, the US, and in fact in practically all countries of the world? That the reason he is being wanted for questioning is because he would very likely not be extradited to Sweden if he was wanted for the actual "crime", since sleeping without condome is not generally punishable by UK law?
There are numerous other oddities in this case. Did you know that Assange was searched by Interpol, even though Interpol would normally never persecute such as case? A fact which made many professionals in the field shake their head in disbelief. Here is what Interpol normally works on: terrorism, organized crime, crimes against humanity, environmental crime, genocide, war crimes, piracy, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, computer crime, intellectual property crime and corruption. No, "sleeping without condome" is not on the list and neither is "rape". Not to speak of the prosecutor in charge in Sweden and the dubious way the original prosecutor was removed from the case for pointing out that there is no case... Or should perhaps the fact be mentioned that Assange offered many times to answer any questions via online conference under supervision by British police, but Swedish prosecutors consistently declined the offer?
Alright then, let's extradite you to China for questioning regarding your views about the communist party of China.
Yes, they did. It's called a "Mac Plus" -- the greatest Apple Macintosh ever built.
I call that bullshit.Your theoretical defense wouldn't even make sense if absolutely anybody could pay extra for a special QoS tag, because not everybody has the money to pay for it -- smaller companies and makers of, say, free VoIP software, and virtually all p2p software would be left out. But it comes worse, in reality even the companies who'd pay the ransom wouldn't be treated equally, competition would be locked out in secret trade agreements and coalitions, and very likely certain services like movie streaming would be restricted to a few (illegal) cartels. Basically, what the telcos/network provider want is a money milking machine, a layered Internet tax system with all kinds of checkpoints where money is deduced.
The result would be comparable to way taxes in the middle age.
But I cannot see in any way why a consumer would not WANT to be able to pay for some premium network service with guaranteed levels of quality for one application (and by that I mean in the network sense) rather than having to pay for an entire internet connection with much greater speed and quality.
It is technically impossible to single out one application and treat it in a privileged way without using deep packet inspection, deliberate bandwith throttling, closed communication protocols with lots of encryption and security by obscurity, and a whole bunch of other things that limit the Internet and make it only feasible for global players and large companies to offer certain end-to-end services.
Despite of what you might think, you do NOT want that. (Perhaps you think you want it because you do not have a firm grasp of how TCP/IP works?)
As noble as the underlying motives might be, I simply find it hard to believe that bullying souvereign nation states or their governments can have positive net effects in the long turn.
sorry, too many negations in the last sentence... ;-)
Perhaps you could develop a third-party library for video games, something that uses CPU and (optionally) GPU as well, be it physics, game AI, or graphics related. You could develop it as a hobby like before and later see how sales go.
For example, I have seen SpeedTree licensed in many games including AA+ titles, so they must make some money. A planet engine providing huge, planet-sized playgrounds would be another example. Or, if you don't want to avoid graphics altogether you could write a massive, highly portable and configurable AI library, i.e. tens of thousands of actors following complex plans in parallel.
Right, because OSX with "TattleTale" would surely have prevented the theft and RMS could never have jammed together a shell script with the same functionality as "TattleTale" within half an hour if he had wanted to.
I've taken a look at dozens or even hundreds of languages over the past 20 years, it's sort of a hobby, and I'm pretty sure that the following point are key to the success of a language:
1. Huge number of available third party libraries and ease of installing them (batteries included).
2. Existence of a working cross-platform GUI library with native widgets. [desktop or mobile applications only]
3. Easy deployment of executables, good IDE and toolchain support (e.g. RAD GUI tools, build automation, etc.)
4. Good, friendly, and non-elitist community
5. Speed and low memory use (often go hand-in-hand, even though theoretically the opposite should be the case)
Point 2 is only relevant for desktop applications, of course. Many otherwise great languages fail because they lack 1 and 2.
I think you're just nitpicking. The OP pointed out that despite their crappy drivers AMD is still the better alternative if you have to choose a graphics card. Contrary to what you think that's both informative -- though arguably not very much, since most people knew that already -- and relevant to the point about AMD you've made.
The right way is to work about 20 minutes while sitting and then another 20 minutes while standing.
For that you'll nedd one of those desks whose height can be adjusted easily on the fly. Just like ergonomical office chairs they are extremely expensive. I've had one when a was working at University in Scandinavia.
There is no "just world fallacy". Whoever wrote that article on Wikipedia does not know the meaning of the word "fallacy" and is in need of some training in logic and argumentation theory.
You might call it an implausible claim, a hypothesis that is not sufficiently backed up by evidence, or perhaps even a religious belief. Neither of these are fallacies.
Why not just create a separate network for children only? With separate browsers, separate trafffic?
The internet is no place for children anyway. It should be 18+ (or 16+, or whatever politicians and their voters desire) like alcohol and tobacco, and it could simply be prohibited for parents to allow their children to be on the "regular" internet in the same sense as it is prohibited to hand out large quantities of vodka to 8 year old kids. I fail to see why adults should be punished, surveilled, and harrassed by authorities just because of a few irresponsible parents. Technically, it's no problem, you can even build the net on top of the regular internet, make phones and tablets with "kid network" browsers (even more sales!), etc.
The added benefit of separate networks would be that kids can no longer look up their homework solutions and there are no longer whiney little pricks on game servers for 18+ games.
"The escalating battle over maps demonstrates the importance of cloud apps to tech companies' larger strategies."
Stupid me, for a moment I thought the battle demonstrates the importance of location-sensitive map applications and not of "cloud" apps in general. There is a technical reason for map applications to be client/server-based, since world-wide high-resolution map data is many terrabytes in size. There is no sound technical reason for server-side data storage in the vast majority of other "cloud" apps, except for the purpose of collecting user-date, of course.
It's just a hunch, but my guess is that Apple is planning or at least contemplating to move to a complete whitelist approach to security for both the iOS (where it is already implemented almost completely) and OS X. This would drastically improve security if Apple were able to write programs without exploitable bugs. Since like every other company Apple is not able to write such programs and in any case uses the wrong architecture, tools and programming languages for it, in reality it does not affect security very much.
Luckily, no matter whether they act on behalf of the US or the UN, many if not all politicians are technically inept and primarily think about the domain name system when they think about "controlling" the Internet. They already have the ability to wiretap, seize equipment, etc. and now they are simply exploring more convenient ways to implement cencorship. As others have pointed out, this is primarily a debate about who should have the power to censor the Net by "seizing" domain names.
Hopefully someone comes up with a distributed domain name system that has acceptable performance and can be integrated into browsers easily, e.g. via a plugin that could become a default later. It's a technical solution to a social/political problem, but since corrupt politicians and IP instituitions who use methods similar to those of organized crime will not go away overnight, it might still be the best way to solve the problem.