A separate executive outside of the legislature came about not from republican examples from history, but from the British monarchy and its distinction from Parliament.
Actually, the British Monarch by tradition is not separate from Parliament, but part of Parliament. That's a little known fact - Parliament officially consists of three parts, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the King/Queen.
Of course, in reality, the distinction of executive and legislative power has been established for ages. However, the monarch could still, in theory, withhold the Royal Assent to any bill that has passed the two houses, and without the Royal Assent, it does not become law. This power of the monarch has not been invoked since the 18th century.
See England and their continued use of Pounds as primary currency, just for one example.
Acceptance of the common currency unit was (and is) voluntary for the EU member states and therefore is a bad example. There are other directives whose implementation is mandatory for the member states, and if countries choose not to, they can be sued at the European Court of Justice and punished with hefty fines. So, the EU in a way enacts meta-laws and meta-enforces them:).
Anyway, my larger point is that most international issues of this type are handled by voluntary cooperation of private sector interests. There is no need for the UN to be involved.
That's right - international coordination of the allocation of root level domain name spaces and ip adresses need not be handled by a UN agency. Any international organization would be fine. It might be constituted under a UN roof, but need not be. But an organization under the control of a single (potentially disliked) nation is politically unacceptable for many other nations..
The EU is a better case, but only within the confines of Europe, because, of course, no one imagined it would be a regulatory body for the world. Furthermore, vide supra, the EU has not yet managed to convince Europeans that it can function as a European regulatory body. Why on Earth should Americans or Asians be convinced it can be a world regulatory body??
Nobody is trying to convince anybody of that. The EU doesn't strive to regulate the world. Nor the internet. They only support a model of internet namespace governance in which the US don't have the supreme regulatory power, but some international body.
The UN royally upgefuckt in Iraq
How so? Well, the UN fucked up in a way, that is, in that they couldn't keep the US from attacking Iraq. And in Iraq, the United States fucked things up enormously. Before the invasion, disarmament had worked out fine everything would have returned to peace - sovereign Iraq could have been reintegrated internationally without the death of thousands of people and suffering of many many more.
Similarly, the EU is in deep doo-doo over the core missions it has already accepted from the European governments. It can't convince Europeans it should function as a government.
Nobody's in a hurry. Well, at least I am not:). I think the EU is doing just fine. Further integration just will take a lot of time. And there is no generally accepted opinion if the EU should really become a full-fledged government (like in the American Union) some day or rather stay a strong federation of independant states.
We have independant countries for very good reasons. But we also have international organizations that coordinate certain things internationally for a reason. Like telephone numbers, mail service, tariffs, finance, copyrights, patents...
The UN is not a lawmaking body, and the EU isn't supposed to be either. Well, the EU actually it is. The countries that signed the EU treaties have the duty to enact laws that implement EU directives and provisions, and some regulations even directly become law, I believe.
The internet was originally arpanet...a US military network....that would mean it is ours.. No. That would mean that a part of it, arpanet, is YOURS (are you Mr. Arpa then? (that was a joke)). Other parts were connected to it. First, university networks, later private company networks. Those were owned by their respective owners. And networks in other nations were connected, which were owned by their respective owners. As you see, the internet belongs to many people that cooperate.
but what DIDN'T change were the ROOT servers that govern the flow of traffic..we own most of them still and will continue to do so. Well, why? That is a historic relic of the time when most of the networks that belonged to the internet were based in the United States. There no longer is any technical reason for that. And the ROOT servers don't govern the flow of traffic. That's the job of routers and stuff, you know. The ROOT server fulfill DNS queries for root level domain names.
This has nothing to do with IP rights and for you to bring that up shows your complete lack of knowledge on the subject.. Well, someone suggested that the US as the "inventor" of the internet should control it. I merely sought to demonstrate that inventorship is no justification for a perpetual control of that what was invented.
Protocols? Try the fucking cable/fiber/computers/hardware that ran/runs it you fucking idiot. Pardon me? I don't get your point, besides the intended offense. If you're suggesting that the networking hardware that forms the internet is owned by you, well, it isn't, it's owned by lots of institutions and people living or based in lots of nations.
1. That the private company is already an international entity that serves international interests. It is under the supervision of the US Department of Commerce. It does not interfere too much, but it exerts ultimate control.
2. That said company has done an excellent job to date, and has shown no need for a government run entity. It is government-run/-authorized already. All that the Brazil, the EU etc. demand is that this authorization has its roots in some international body, not the US.
3. That it is not the US policy to force private companies to give up ownership. Ownership of what exactly? Nobody demands the physical transfer of servers and other hardware. This is about the control of the namespaces (which cannot be "owned" by a private company, only assigned and managed) and their publication. That control is currently exerted by ICANN, on a license. The question is who is authorized to issue such a license, or better: is it in everybody's interest to accept "foreign" namespaces that *might* be controlled in a way that conflicts with their interests.
4. That the UN has no compelling argument for wanting control other than the fact that it wants it. The US have even less arguments for wanting control. If the namespaces are meant to be global and to be used by everyone, why not control them on that level?
5. That the UN has a far poorer track record on joint ventures than ICANN has. About that, I don't know. What joint ventures with whom does ICANN have? With whom do the UN venture jointly?
Well, how do you explain then that the internet does not only cover the US, but the rest of the world as well? There were people in lots of places setting up networks and interconnecting them. Sure, the scalable protocols that enabled these interconnects to work came out of the US, but the internet is much more than the protocols it uses. Intellectual property becomes common knowledge. That's why patents expire.
Uuh... you know there things like security holes? Like the WINDOWS auto-execution of autorun files (I hope you've heard about this commonly used OS, or haven't you stepped out of your nice server room where you spend your nights monitoring security mailing lists for a decade or two?
Having an open security hole is NOT an invitation for somebody to come along and abuse it. And even if foreign code is executed with my knowledge - if the code performs something unexpected and malevolent without telling me so, isn't the author of that trojan to blame rather than me? Have you ever installed and run a binary package or a source package without reading the source code first? Yes? Well, then you just relied on that piece of software not being trojaned.
You know, there are people who neither have your technical knowledge nor an OS with a decent security in mind. Maybe you don't have the problem - I personally haven't had it either on my Debian desktop. But that doesn't make me so narrowminded as to forget about the rest of the world.
Why should it be a contractual violation? Usually, I don't have a contract with the owner of a DVD' contents' copyright. I just buy it at a shop (so the only contract that is established is that of purchase of an item). And what keeps me from copying it is plain old copyright law, not contractual law.
I agree with you that piracy is a terrible word that, if at all, should only apply to people who infringe copyright for their own profit, on a commercial or organized scale. And "theft" is just completely wrong - one who creates a copy that he should not create does not take anything away from anybody.
So the driver gets installed without any user feedback. Wow. That's... horrible. A trojan cd. I believe there's a criminal case... they're abusing a security hole in the Operating System that was intended as a feature (auto-execution of code upon insertion of media) in order to install malware. On a commercial scale. How gross.
Isn't it at the brink of illegality to install a DRIVER on a consumer's computer which the consumer doesn't want there and that only has negative effects for him? If there is not at least a dialog that warns about what is about to happen, I think the makers of such "trojan cds" are in trouble...
If, without my knowledge or consent, inserting the CD installs a DRIVER into my OS that stops me from doing things I'd like to do, isn't that a criminal act? Like giving someone a malevolent virus or a "joke" program that does "format c:"? I'm fairly certain it is in Germany, there something called "computer sabotage" in our criminal code. Since this "copy protection" not only keeps data from being copied, but actively alters the system in an undesirable and persistent way, that description seems to fit.
> It has everything to do with September 11. Saddam was a terrorist himself, and we were going to prevent him from doing another September 11.
Of course he was. He is also the devil in disguise and everything else you tell me without proof.The sovereign nation was invaded after it attacked the U.S. and refused to stop.
> The sovereign nation was invaded after it attacked the U.S. and refused to stop.
Damn, I missed the CNN footage of Iraqi soldiers invading the USA. Maybe it was covered up. Honestly, I don't know how in what way you think Iraq has attacked the U.S.A.
> It is a great victory in the well-thought-out war on terrorism. There is no way this can be denied.
Actually, I don't see any way how this can be proven. Luckily, the burden of proof lies with you. You have failed to somehow demonstrate a connection between Iraq and terrorism.
> linuxgazette.com was first, and linuxgazzete.net is a ripoff of the.com
Of course the website "linuxgazette.com" existed before; but now many (most? all?) of the volunteers who ran this project (and who see themselves as "Linux Gazette" have created a new site, since the old one is no longer under their control. The company who once offered to host it now claims to own it. Read the linuxgazette.net side of the story at http://linuxgazette.net/issue96/reborn.html
Quote: "SSC, the company who had been hosting - and, to some degree, supporting - our efforts since shortly after the inception of the Gazette has decided that it somehow belongs to them, to change, adapt - or to destroy - at their pleasure."
> The law. That's how it works, braniac. But how do you know that the company is the rightful owner of the trademark and can do what it wants with it, without knowing about the agreements SSC had whith the linuxgazette people?
Well, if they were performing a mock battle in order to determine the tanks' performance, I think it's perfectly legal to use jamming devices. Any enemy who had them would use them.
And if the countries that like to 'rain cruise missiles down on' other countries ceased doing that, maybe those who think it is ok to 'kill bus loads of women/kids' of the bomb-throwing country would stop thinking that way.
You did not answer my question - of course any satellite-based navigation system might be used to guide missiles. That is not much different to the situation with GPS.
Why does that make you think it is Galileo's *purpose* to be used in a war against the US?
Lack of cooperation is what makes other people enemys instead of friendy...
I really think that a second global civilian navigation satellite system created by a lot of European nation and "anti-freedom communists" is a lot better than a single one that is controlled by the constantly warring military of a single "anti-freedom imperialist" nation.
But though the server happens to be run by a US company, it might still be an international website, like, targeted at everybody around the world, not people of a particular country. That's what domains like.org ought to be used for, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
A separate executive outside of the legislature came about not from republican examples from history, but from the British monarchy and its distinction from Parliament.
Actually, the British Monarch by tradition is not separate from Parliament, but part of Parliament. That's a little known fact - Parliament officially consists of three parts, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the King/Queen.
Of course, in reality, the distinction of executive and legislative power has been established for ages. However, the monarch could still, in theory, withhold the Royal Assent to any bill that has passed the two houses, and without the Royal Assent, it does not become law. This power of the monarch has not been invoked since the 18th century.
See England and their continued use of Pounds as primary currency, just for one example.
:).
Acceptance of the common currency unit was (and is) voluntary for the EU member states and therefore is a bad example. There are other directives whose implementation is mandatory for the member states, and if countries choose not to, they can be sued at the European Court of Justice and punished with hefty fines. So, the EU in a way enacts meta-laws and meta-enforces them
Anyway, my larger point is that most international issues of this type are handled by voluntary cooperation of private sector interests. There is no need for the UN to be involved.
That's right - international coordination of the allocation of root level domain name spaces and ip adresses need not be handled by a UN agency. Any international organization would be fine. It might be constituted under a UN roof, but need not be. But an organization under the control of a single (potentially disliked) nation is politically unacceptable for many other nations..
The EU is a better case, but only within the confines of Europe, because, of course, no one imagined it would be a regulatory body for the world. Furthermore, vide supra, the EU has not yet managed to convince Europeans that it can function as a European regulatory body. Why on Earth should Americans or Asians be convinced it can be a world regulatory body??
:). I think the EU is doing just fine. Further integration just will take a lot of time. And there is no generally accepted opinion if the EU should really become a full-fledged government (like in the American Union) some day or rather stay a strong federation of independant states.
Nobody is trying to convince anybody of that. The EU doesn't strive to regulate the world. Nor the internet. They only support a model of internet namespace governance in which the US don't have the supreme regulatory power, but some international body.
The UN royally upgefuckt in Iraq
How so? Well, the UN fucked up in a way, that is, in that they couldn't keep the US from attacking Iraq. And in Iraq, the United States fucked things up enormously. Before the invasion, disarmament had worked out fine everything would have returned to peace - sovereign Iraq could have been reintegrated internationally without the death of thousands of people and suffering of many many more.
Similarly, the EU is in deep doo-doo over the core missions it has already accepted from the European governments. It can't convince Europeans it should function as a government.
Nobody's in a hurry. Well, at least I am not
We have independant countries for very good reasons.
But we also have international organizations that coordinate certain things internationally for a reason. Like telephone numbers, mail service, tariffs, finance, copyrights, patents...
The UN is not a lawmaking body, and the EU isn't supposed to be either.
Well, the EU actually it is. The countries that signed the EU treaties have the duty to enact laws that implement EU directives and provisions, and some regulations even directly become law, I believe.
The internet was originally arpanet...a US military network....that would mean it is ours..
No. That would mean that a part of it, arpanet, is YOURS (are you Mr. Arpa then? (that was a joke)). Other parts were connected to it. First, university networks, later private company networks. Those were owned by their respective owners. And networks in other nations were connected, which were owned by their respective owners. As you see, the internet belongs to many people that cooperate.
but what DIDN'T change were the ROOT servers that govern the flow of traffic..we own most of them still and will continue to do so.
Well, why? That is a historic relic of the time when most of the networks that belonged to the internet were based in the United States. There no longer is any technical reason for that. And the ROOT servers don't govern the flow of traffic. That's the job of routers and stuff, you know. The ROOT server fulfill DNS queries for root level domain names.
This has nothing to do with IP rights and for you to bring that up shows your complete lack of knowledge on the subject..
Well, someone suggested that the US as the "inventor" of the internet should control it. I merely sought to demonstrate that inventorship is no justification for a perpetual control of that what was invented.
Protocols? Try the fucking cable/fiber/computers/hardware that ran/runs it you fucking idiot.
Pardon me? I don't get your point, besides the intended offense. If you're suggesting that the networking hardware that forms the internet is owned by you, well, it isn't, it's owned by lots of institutions and people living or based in lots of nations.
1. That the private company is already an international entity that serves international interests.
It is under the supervision of the US Department of Commerce. It does not interfere too much, but it exerts ultimate control.
2. That said company has done an excellent job to date, and has shown no need for a government run entity.
It is government-run/-authorized already. All that the Brazil, the EU etc. demand is that this authorization has its roots in some international body, not the US.
3. That it is not the US policy to force private companies to give up ownership.
Ownership of what exactly? Nobody demands the physical transfer of servers and other hardware. This is about the control of the namespaces (which cannot be "owned" by a private company, only assigned and managed) and their publication. That control is currently exerted by ICANN, on a license. The question is who is authorized to issue such a license, or better: is it in everybody's interest to accept "foreign" namespaces that *might* be controlled in a way that conflicts with their interests.
4. That the UN has no compelling argument for wanting control other than the fact that it wants it.
The US have even less arguments for wanting control. If the namespaces are meant to be global and to be used by everyone, why not control them on that level?
5. That the UN has a far poorer track record on joint ventures than ICANN has.
About that, I don't know. What joint ventures with whom does ICANN have? With whom do the UN venture jointly?
Well, how do you explain then that the internet does not only cover the US, but the rest of the world as well? There were people in lots of places setting up networks and interconnecting them. Sure, the scalable protocols that enabled these interconnects to work came out of the US, but the internet is much more than the protocols it uses. Intellectual property becomes common knowledge. That's why patents expire.
Uuh... you know there things like security holes? Like the WINDOWS auto-execution of autorun files (I hope you've heard about this commonly used OS, or haven't you stepped out of your nice server room where you spend your nights monitoring security mailing lists for a decade or two?
Having an open security hole is NOT an invitation for somebody to come along and abuse it. And even if foreign code is executed with my knowledge - if the code performs something unexpected and malevolent without telling me so, isn't the author of that trojan to blame rather than me? Have you ever installed and run a binary package or a source package without reading the source code first? Yes? Well, then you just relied on that piece of software not being trojaned.
You know, there are people who neither have your technical knowledge nor an OS with a decent security in mind. Maybe you don't have the problem - I personally haven't had it either on my Debian desktop. But that doesn't make me so narrowminded as to forget about the rest of the world.
Why should it be a contractual violation? Usually, I don't have a contract with the owner of a DVD' contents' copyright. I just buy it at a shop (so the only contract that is established is that of purchase of an item). And what keeps me from copying it is plain old copyright law, not contractual law.
I agree with you that piracy is a terrible word that, if at all, should only apply to people who infringe copyright for their own profit, on a commercial or organized scale. And "theft" is just completely wrong - one who creates a copy that he should not create does not take anything away from anybody.
So the driver gets installed without any user feedback. Wow. That's... horrible. A trojan cd. I believe there's a criminal case... they're abusing a security hole in the Operating System that was intended as a feature (auto-execution of code upon insertion of media) in order to install malware. On a commercial scale. How gross.
Isn't it at the brink of illegality to install a DRIVER on a consumer's computer which the consumer doesn't want there and that only has negative effects for him? If there is not at least a dialog that warns about what is about to happen, I think the makers of such "trojan cds" are in trouble...
If, without my knowledge or consent, inserting the CD installs a DRIVER into my OS that stops me from doing things I'd like to do, isn't that a criminal act? Like giving someone a malevolent virus or a "joke" program that does "format c:"? I'm fairly certain it is in Germany, there something called "computer sabotage" in our criminal code. Since this "copy protection" not only keeps data from being copied, but actively alters the system in an undesirable and persistent way, that description seems to fit.
> It has everything to do with September 11. Saddam was a terrorist himself, and we were going to prevent him from doing another September 11.
Of course he was. He is also the devil in disguise and everything else you tell me without proof.The sovereign nation was invaded after it attacked the U.S. and refused to stop.
> The sovereign nation was invaded after it attacked the U.S. and refused to stop.
Damn, I missed the CNN footage of Iraqi soldiers invading the USA. Maybe it was covered up.
Honestly, I don't know how in what way you think Iraq has attacked the U.S.A.
> It is a great victory in the well-thought-out war on terrorism. There is no way this can be denied.
Actually, I don't see any way how this can be proven. Luckily, the burden of proof lies with you. You have failed to somehow demonstrate a connection between Iraq and terrorism.
Sebastian
> 'ye hearts' should be 'thy heart dost'
Not "thy heart doth"? You're not talking to the heart, after all.
Sebastian
> linuxgazette.com was first, and linuxgazzete.net is a ripoff of the .com
Of course the website "linuxgazette.com" existed before; but now many (most? all?) of the volunteers who ran this project (and who see themselves as "Linux Gazette" have created a new site, since the old one is no longer under their control. The company who once offered to host it now claims to own it. Read the linuxgazette.net side of the story at http://linuxgazette.net/issue96/reborn.html
Quote:
"SSC, the company who had been hosting - and, to some degree, supporting - our efforts since shortly after the inception of the Gazette has decided that it somehow belongs to them, to change, adapt - or to destroy - at their pleasure."
> The law. That's how it works, braniac.
But how do you know that the company is the rightful owner of the trademark and can do what it wants with it, without knowing about the agreements SSC had whith the linuxgazette people?
But what if it was not a copycat site but a site made by some of the people who who ran the first site?
This is about a volunteer project, and the projecst has split. Who is to say which of the two groups can keep the name and which cannot?
Sebastian
I congratulate you. That was the most hilarious and yet almost convincing imitation of the dumb nationalist prototype I have ever seen.
>> biological research
> Oh wait he acutlly used it on his own people.
What is your source for that information (use of biological weapons on Iraqi people)?
Sebastian
> Here is a list of every European country that has ratified the Kyoto Protocol:
...
You seem to have forgotten the actual list, so here is. As for completeness, I cannot promise that I haven't overlooked one or two:
Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland.
Quite a lot, really...
And just about any other significant country has ratified the treaty, too - Canada, China, Japan,
Well, if they were performing a mock battle in order to determine the tanks' performance, I think it's perfectly legal to use jamming devices. Any enemy who had them would use them.
And if the countries that like to 'rain cruise missiles down on' other countries ceased doing that, maybe those who think it is ok to 'kill bus loads of women/kids' of the bomb-throwing country would stop thinking that way.
You did not answer my question - of course any satellite-based navigation system might be used to guide missiles. That is not much different to the situation with GPS.
Why does that make you think it is Galileo's *purpose* to be used in a war against the US?
Lack of cooperation is what makes other people enemys instead of friendy...
I really think that a second global civilian navigation satellite system created by a lot of European nation and "anti-freedom communists" is a lot better than a single one that is controlled by the constantly warring military of a single "anti-freedom imperialist" nation.
What exactly makes you think Galileo is meant for a war involving the US?
But though the server happens to be run by a US company, it might still be an international website, like, targeted at everybody around the world, not people of a particular country. That's what domains like .org ought to be used for, anyway.