Hey man, you got the time? Sure, it's 10am. That's from the Latin ante meridiem, by the way, in case you were wondering. That means it's between midnight and noon.
I'm not a lawmaker, but I would say that part of the privilege (it's not a right, it's a privilege) of being a US citizen is respecting our laws. If you choose to not abide by this law, then you are no longer a citizen. It sounds like the punishment outweighs the crime (like I said, I'm not a lawmaker), but it doesn't sound all that strange to require that citizens follow the laws.
There's obviously nationalistic bias, it seems like the Americans want control to stay in the US and the non-Americans don't want that. I see about as many Americans saying DNS should be country-neutral as I see non-Americans saying the current situation is fine. What I don't see are people trying to argue that the current situation is not working. I see a lot of "it should be this way" or "it should be that way", but not a lot of "the current situation doesn't work because of X, Y, and Z". It appears that the current situation *does* work, so it's going to take a strong argument to make a change. I'm not specifically arguing that the US is the single best entity to control this, I'm saying that the current situation does not warrant changes.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you refuse this border check, you will *also* not be allowed to enter the US (once you leave, obviously). In other words, you can refuse, but you're no longer welcome in the US. Either that, or they will lock you up for however long the punishment is and then deport you, similar to what other countries (e.g. Japan) do when you try to leave without documentation.
It also raises some serious legal questions for people like me. I am a citizen of two nations, the US and Canada. I have a right to go to either nation. So is it legal for the US to say "No, you can't go to Canada,"? Who are they to tell me I can't go to my country?
Strictly speaking, what they're talking about is not deciding where you can go, but deciding if you can leave at all (presumably, although that hasn't specifically been mentioned). In other words, it's not that they're saying "you can't go to Canada", what they're saying is "you can't leave the US". In reality, they're not saying that at all, all they're saying is that if you *do* leave, they're going to fingerprint you before you go, I don't think anyone's talking about not letting you leave. I would imagine that the punishment for refusing to submit to fingerprinting is that you won't be allowed to return, instead of denying you access to leave.
And since Americans were giving up civil liberties left and right for a while there (Patriot Act et al), are we sure they'd say boo about anything else being censored on the internet?
Is anyone else going to, besides the US? Britian in particular seems to be hell-bent on censoring and monitoring everything they can. Germany censors quite a bit based on sensitivities. Turkey attacks anything they find insulting, similar to Muslim nations. I'm not trying to claim that the US does not censor anything, but which government or organization is going to hold civil liberties and rights to a higher standard than the US?
It's hard to ask that question and not sound like a douche, I'm really not trying to toot our own horn (I'm well aware of our Bush-era image), I just think that the US has a better history with regard to the preservation of civil liberties (and a better technical understanding of the internet) than any other organization that would be considered to replace our role.
I worry about their propensity to go after gaming sites, mod chip sites, and sites like IcraveTV.
Oh, you're worried about entertainment being censored. I thought we were worried about political, religious, and civil dissidence being censored. Well never mind then. You can have your mod chips and online TV citizen, and be happy that you have it, but I hope you never disagree with your local government or religion.
That's an interesting example. In trying to show how the US wants to censor, you give 3 pieces of legislation that did not succeed because they did not pass constitutional muster. 3 examples of things politicians wanted to see happen, but upon closer examination, before they had a chance to get implemented, cooler, more sane heads prevailed.
Politicians might want to censor this or that, but that doesn't mean their proposals get put into law. That's sort of the point we're talking about here, that the US does not go out and immediately censor something, it takes a lot of discussion and convincing to advance something like that. I'm not saying that won't change in the next few years with our RIAA friends doing the deciding, or with the lovely confidential copyright and trade agreements being worked on, but the past has shown that, with the possible exception of the Patriot Act, the US doesn't have a habit of blindly rushing into legislation that's going to result in censorship.
Just also please note, it's not just an American writing in an American magazine... it is a Rightwing Nationalistic American writing in a Rightwing Nationalistic Magazine.
I just want to point out that none of that changes the meaning of his words. It would be pretty disingenuous to immediately discount an argument simply because of the source, without taking the argument into consideration at all.
Let's see.. we need a TLD for BBS sites, because those are all over the place, we need a.geek TLD for hobbyist sites, we need a.fur TLD for furries, that one should be obvious, a.oss TLD for open-source software, and we need a TLD that's just "fun!" For fun things!
Good work, let's call it a day.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the guy who came up with OpenNIC was an OSS-writing, BBS-operating, parody-making, micronation-living, gopher-using furry geek. It's a wonder it never caught on.
Yeah, good point, clearly there are only 2 possibilities here. Either the United States is completely devoid of any and all wrongdoing, or the United States is the single most evil country to ever exist. It can't be the case that the US is "not so bad, relative to other superpowers". No, that's not possible, either everything this country does is coming directly from God, or we're all going straight to hell.
You're missing the point of the parent. I'm reading his 3 sentences over again, but I'm pretty sure he never claimed that the US has never done anything bad and that no one can complain about anything the US ever does. The point is that, relative to other countries, the US is not as bad as we're made out to be by our critics.
Look, the US, as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown.
No, it's not. Censorship is alive and well all over the world, and there are many governments who would love to excercise censorship beyond their own borders.
Here's a question: if we give the UN control over the DNS system, what happens to Taiwan's TLD? You only have to look at the last Olympics to know how China views Taiwan, they weren't allowed to compete as "Taiwan", they were "Chinese Taipei". If China had a say over which TLDs are allowed, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the.tw domain so that it is effectively censored worldwide. They can block access to.tw inside their own country now, but they don't have a way to block access to Taiwan websites inside the US or EU. That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS. And that's only the most obvious example. I'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia's TLD the next time they decide to invade, by claiming that Georgia is part of Russia, or maybe they would set up a new South Ossetia TLD to bolster their claim that South Ossetia is not part of Georgia.
The only reason that it appears that censorship is not an imminent threat is because worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced. The reason that worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced is because the US controls the DNS system.
Probably a fair indication of what kind of leader you have on your hands... definitely marketing/business for Gates.
I don't understand how you can come to a conclusion like that. All that shows is that Steve Jobs thinks that it's important to get his name on patents, and Bill Gates doesn't. I can't find definite numbers, but Apple has at least 2000 patents, and Microsoft had at least 5000 three years ago. Frankly, I think the fact that Steve Jobs is more interested in getting his name on patents means that he is the more business and marketing-oriented of the two, not Gates. Gates could have his name on several thousand patents, but apparently he didn't think that was important.
It's not listening to music that requires thinking, it's acquiring it. If your music player or the music you're buying is designed to not work with other things out there, then that's something you should think about before buying. That should be obvious.
Considering the fact that you can download Windows 7 and Visual Studio Express for free, I don't think it's as expensive as you think. There are also several good deals on XP now, I prefer XP over later versions anyway.
If you're going to talk about using unofficial SDKs or jailbroken phones, you might as well run Visual Studio in Wine. Requiring a hack like jailbreaking in order to use the iPhone the way you want to is not an advantage for the iPhone.
That's sort of beside the point though. I find it hard to imagine that there are Linux or Mac users out there without access to Windows machines that are dying to write Zune applications. If you're targeting the Zune platform, chances are you have a Windows machine handy.
That's exactly what Apple is counting on. Most people don't consider thinking to be a burden. It's an amusing argument anyway, that choice of where to buy your music and the fact that music you buy from a variety of retailers works, is a bad thing. If you're against consumer choice I guess that explains why you prefer Apple products though.
Slashdot Mirror
NEVER USE ACRONYMS WITHOUT DEFINING THEM!
Really?
Hey man, you got the time?
Sure, it's 10am. That's from the Latin ante meridiem, by the way, in case you were wondering. That means it's between midnight and noon.
I'm not a lawmaker, but I would say that part of the privilege (it's not a right, it's a privilege) of being a US citizen is respecting our laws. If you choose to not abide by this law, then you are no longer a citizen. It sounds like the punishment outweighs the crime (like I said, I'm not a lawmaker), but it doesn't sound all that strange to require that citizens follow the laws.
There's obviously nationalistic bias, it seems like the Americans want control to stay in the US and the non-Americans don't want that. I see about as many Americans saying DNS should be country-neutral as I see non-Americans saying the current situation is fine. What I don't see are people trying to argue that the current situation is not working. I see a lot of "it should be this way" or "it should be that way", but not a lot of "the current situation doesn't work because of X, Y, and Z". It appears that the current situation *does* work, so it's going to take a strong argument to make a change. I'm not specifically arguing that the US is the single best entity to control this, I'm saying that the current situation does not warrant changes.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you refuse this border check, you will *also* not be allowed to enter the US (once you leave, obviously). In other words, you can refuse, but you're no longer welcome in the US. Either that, or they will lock you up for however long the punishment is and then deport you, similar to what other countries (e.g. Japan) do when you try to leave without documentation.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but typically illegal immigrants do not enter the country where there is a customs station to scan them.
If you add the 'execution' fee -how appropriate- it's $100.00US.
Just out of curiosity, how is that appropriate? Which US passport holders are being executed?
It also raises some serious legal questions for people like me. I am a citizen of two nations, the US and Canada. I have a right to go to either nation. So is it legal for the US to say "No, you can't go to Canada,"? Who are they to tell me I can't go to my country?
Strictly speaking, what they're talking about is not deciding where you can go, but deciding if you can leave at all (presumably, although that hasn't specifically been mentioned). In other words, it's not that they're saying "you can't go to Canada", what they're saying is "you can't leave the US". In reality, they're not saying that at all, all they're saying is that if you *do* leave, they're going to fingerprint you before you go, I don't think anyone's talking about not letting you leave. I would imagine that the punishment for refusing to submit to fingerprinting is that you won't be allowed to return, instead of denying you access to leave.
WM trashed SAP's ERP.
And since Americans were giving up civil liberties left and right for a while there (Patriot Act et al), are we sure they'd say boo about anything else being censored on the internet?
Is anyone else going to, besides the US? Britian in particular seems to be hell-bent on censoring and monitoring everything they can. Germany censors quite a bit based on sensitivities. Turkey attacks anything they find insulting, similar to Muslim nations. I'm not trying to claim that the US does not censor anything, but which government or organization is going to hold civil liberties and rights to a higher standard than the US?
It's hard to ask that question and not sound like a douche, I'm really not trying to toot our own horn (I'm well aware of our Bush-era image), I just think that the US has a better history with regard to the preservation of civil liberties (and a better technical understanding of the internet) than any other organization that would be considered to replace our role.
Why did you feel the need to point that out, since I *specifically mentioned* that in my own post (the whole part about the lgoical fallacy)?
Since you asked, because of this statement:
I'd lend those arguments a lot more credence if the weren't coming from Nationalistic sources
I understand you recognize it's a logical fallacy, I just disagree with that statement.
The only thing worse than the US is everything else.
I worry about their propensity to go after gaming sites, mod chip sites, and sites like IcraveTV.
Oh, you're worried about entertainment being censored. I thought we were worried about political, religious, and civil dissidence being censored. Well never mind then. You can have your mod chips and online TV citizen, and be happy that you have it, but I hope you never disagree with your local government or religion.
That's an interesting example. In trying to show how the US wants to censor, you give 3 pieces of legislation that did not succeed because they did not pass constitutional muster. 3 examples of things politicians wanted to see happen, but upon closer examination, before they had a chance to get implemented, cooler, more sane heads prevailed.
Politicians might want to censor this or that, but that doesn't mean their proposals get put into law. That's sort of the point we're talking about here, that the US does not go out and immediately censor something, it takes a lot of discussion and convincing to advance something like that. I'm not saying that won't change in the next few years with our RIAA friends doing the deciding, or with the lovely confidential copyright and trade agreements being worked on, but the past has shown that, with the possible exception of the Patriot Act, the US doesn't have a habit of blindly rushing into legislation that's going to result in censorship.
Here's an alternative; move all the existing three letter TLDs under .us
Hey, that's a great idea: let's break 95% of the links written in the past 15 years.
Just also please note, it's not just an American writing in an American magazine... it is a Rightwing Nationalistic American writing in a Rightwing Nationalistic Magazine.
I just want to point out that none of that changes the meaning of his words. It would be pretty disingenuous to immediately discount an argument simply because of the source, without taking the argument into consideration at all.
That entry for OpenNIC is pretty ridiculous.
Let's see.. we need a TLD for BBS sites, because those are all over the place, we need a .geek TLD for hobbyist sites, we need a .fur TLD for furries, that one should be obvious, a .oss TLD for open-source software, and we need a TLD that's just "fun!" For fun things!
Good work, let's call it a day.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the guy who came up with OpenNIC was an OSS-writing, BBS-operating, parody-making, micronation-living, gopher-using furry geek. It's a wonder it never caught on.
Yeah, good point, clearly there are only 2 possibilities here. Either the United States is completely devoid of any and all wrongdoing, or the United States is the single most evil country to ever exist. It can't be the case that the US is "not so bad, relative to other superpowers". No, that's not possible, either everything this country does is coming directly from God, or we're all going straight to hell.
You're missing the point of the parent. I'm reading his 3 sentences over again, but I'm pretty sure he never claimed that the US has never done anything bad and that no one can complain about anything the US ever does. The point is that, relative to other countries, the US is not as bad as we're made out to be by our critics.
Look, the US, as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown.
No, it's not. Censorship is alive and well all over the world, and there are many governments who would love to excercise censorship beyond their own borders.
Here's a question: if we give the UN control over the DNS system, what happens to Taiwan's TLD? You only have to look at the last Olympics to know how China views Taiwan, they weren't allowed to compete as "Taiwan", they were "Chinese Taipei". If China had a say over which TLDs are allowed, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the .tw domain so that it is effectively censored worldwide. They can block access to .tw inside their own country now, but they don't have a way to block access to Taiwan websites inside the US or EU. That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS. And that's only the most obvious example. I'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia's TLD the next time they decide to invade, by claiming that Georgia is part of Russia, or maybe they would set up a new South Ossetia TLD to bolster their claim that South Ossetia is not part of Georgia.
The only reason that it appears that censorship is not an imminent threat is because worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced. The reason that worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced is because the US controls the DNS system.
Probably a fair indication of what kind of leader you have on your hands ... definitely marketing/business for Gates.
I don't understand how you can come to a conclusion like that. All that shows is that Steve Jobs thinks that it's important to get his name on patents, and Bill Gates doesn't. I can't find definite numbers, but Apple has at least 2000 patents, and Microsoft had at least 5000 three years ago. Frankly, I think the fact that Steve Jobs is more interested in getting his name on patents means that he is the more business and marketing-oriented of the two, not Gates. Gates could have his name on several thousand patents, but apparently he didn't think that was important.
It's not listening to music that requires thinking, it's acquiring it. If your music player or the music you're buying is designed to not work with other things out there, then that's something you should think about before buying. That should be obvious.
Considering the fact that you can download Windows 7 and Visual Studio Express for free, I don't think it's as expensive as you think. There are also several good deals on XP now, I prefer XP over later versions anyway.
If you're going to talk about using unofficial SDKs or jailbroken phones, you might as well run Visual Studio in Wine. Requiring a hack like jailbreaking in order to use the iPhone the way you want to is not an advantage for the iPhone.
That's sort of beside the point though. I find it hard to imagine that there are Linux or Mac users out there without access to Windows machines that are dying to write Zune applications. If you're targeting the Zune platform, chances are you have a Windows machine handy.
Probably about as well as you can develop iPhone software without OSX.
I don't have to think.
That's exactly what Apple is counting on. Most people don't consider thinking to be a burden. It's an amusing argument anyway, that choice of where to buy your music and the fact that music you buy from a variety of retailers works, is a bad thing. If you're against consumer choice I guess that explains why you prefer Apple products though.
So the whole reason that Windows Mobile has problems is because application developers are porting their desktop applications?