What gives you the right to control something you don't own?
Funny you should say that. What gives you the right to control another country's domain?
No...each country wouldn't have control over their domain....the UN would. Think about that nightmare for a moment.
And how would that be different from them not having control over their domain cause you have control exactly? Given the choice between you and the UN, the rest of the world chooses the UN, the lesser of two evils.
Sorry to hear about your brother. Yes, this kinda stuff goes on in Sweden as well, but to a much lesser degree. Last person to get killed during interogation was 10 years ago (Osmo Vallo). Last cop to get killed on the street was 5-7 years ago (Jackie Arklöv killed 2 cops chasing them after a bank robbery).
And I've never even heard of anal rape in Swedish prisons.
The thing is that violence breeds violence. Since cops in Sweden generally don't shoot first and ask questions later, they rarely get killed, and neither the suspects. And since there isn't much anal rape and shit in Swedish prisons, where the guards don't have guns btw, ex-cons actually have a chance of getting out seminormal. And your whole war-on-drugs is fueling new generations of fuckups to roam your streets.
And the fact that other countries use torture does make torture less of a crime. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
The thing with Guantanamo isn't really the methods of interogation, it's that people don't get charged for anything even after several years. It took at least 2 years before the Swedish guy you had in there got released and he was never charged. That is a violation of human rights.
And Guantanamo isn't even half of the problem. The problem is all prisons in Iraq that are torturing people to death, and who gets sent to prison seems to be totally random. This one Swedish citizen, who fled from Iraq during Saddam went back, was arrested and they pulled out all his finger- and toenails, and electrocuted his genitals. That shit is fucked up, and 'You' are still over there. Is that shit freedom really?
Did I say most of the internet's infrastructure was? No. I said most of the key infrastructure was. Most of the original, base, infrastructure around which the rest of the internet has grown was.
All of which you can keep. All the old stuff from the NSFnet years is obsolete anyway. And again, it's not about the infrastructure at all, but about control. Verisign will stil own the stuff, but ICANN won't be able to turn of a country.
Doesn't matter. It was paid for by tax dollars at one point in time. If I buy something with one big lump sum payment, or if I pay off my debt on something.....is it no longer mine because I am not continually paying for that item?
Again. You can keep the old stuff all you want. It's not in operation anymore.
I don't see how that was stealing exactly...
$0 in cash went to the country Niue who should have owned the.nu domain. Now it made some American richer. That's stealing. And it's exactly this kind of control the ICANN shouldn't have.
No need for further argumentation on **AA as we are the same page there.
True, we only came up with the idea, and built the basic infrastructure...which we want to continue to own and not have seized in some socialist power grab.
Just just don't seem to get it. You will still own the infrastructure. It about CONTROL! It a about freedom for one country to have control over their own domain. How can you be against freedom?:) I know, I stole that one from the Bush administration.
Really? That's really odd man. My memory must be off. I woke up this morning, and I have no memory of me ever torturing anybody.
You seem to lack a firm grasp on the English language. The 'You' in this case was in plural, meaning 'You' Americans as a country. 'You' torture people in Iraq and on Guantanamo, both two places 'You' control. That's a war crime, and 'You' as a people should make it stop.
The thing is, it's not tax payer dollars which have payed for most of the infrastucture. It's company dollars like Verisign. And they get payed from all over the world. And in some cases it's not dollars at all but as I could show, Swedish tax Kronors.
And this isn't about the infrastucture at all really. The actual servers will be in the same spot run by the same people. It's about control.
The infrastucture hasn't been payed by tax dollars for a very long time, it's been payed by companies. And often Americans have stolen money belonging to other countries. The guys living on he Island Niue were pretty pissed that an American was hogging all the money for the.nu TLD, especially since it was popular in sweden since 'nu' means 'now' in Swedish.
Wake up to the music, the world don't like you saying "We can do what we want!".
And that's the whole point of this flame war.
The side issue of the occupation of Iraq is just to show a recuring pattern of the US trying to force it's view on the world. Same thing with RIAA and MPAA, and software patents. Why do you think there is such resistance against patents in Europe? We tend to have smaller and less litigious companies that would be killed if software patens were allowed.
And you _don't_ own the technology. As soon as it's an RFC, the world owns it.
And seriously. You should stop torturing people. For real.
You do not have free media. It it way more controlled than you think, doesn't matter if it's a combination of government, one of the two parties, or giant media companies. The minute the media doesn't give you the truth, they are doing something wrong.
And you haven't seen even the tip of the iceberg of abuse that is going on. Lyndie England is not enough.
I am a hypocrit? How? I'm against all forms of censorship, even the swedish film industry. I want _all_ the blood and gore. *turning on GTA:SA now*
About the bigot thing. You are just wrong. Not even gonna touch that.
"Either you are just not understanding right (possibly, given you are not a native speaker of English, let alone the American dialect, let alone American legalese...) or you are being incredibly pedantic."
Trust me. You would not be able to tell I'm not american if you heard me speak. It looks like you are the bigot here. (hint: I've lived in the US, all A student including english)
And there is a BIG difference between congress declaring war on a country, and giving that power to the president. It's not their power to give away according to the constitution. Please at least try to understand.
Yes, the revolution was fundamentalist from the start. That's what I said. The Ayatolla took over.
And yes, there might have been an old dispute, but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was afraid of the revolution spreading. Please show some facts that he wasn't afraid.
And you admit that you gave weapons to both sides. That's exactly what I said. Good. We agree.
Does it matter if it takes 1 week or 10 years between the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait? Do chemical and biological weapons given to Saddam stop working after a couple of years? You gave them to him. Along with all other weapons. You gave weapons to him, later he turned and invaded a friendly neighbour.
And please. Everyone know the Pentagon would have been pleased as punch if you could have gone all the way to Bagdad. Why the hell did you think the Bush administration tried to spin the 9/11 to occupy Iraq? Go see "Why We Fight" and hear it from operatives in the Pentagon yourself.
Minor breaches is not the thing the congress gave the president reason to go into Iraq for. And the Bush administration knew there weren't any WMD, it was all a lie. Especially Rumsfelt saying: "The whole world knows [Saddam] has weapons of mass destruction."
"I might add that most of America was getting fed up with the prick, not just Bush."
You bigot. Hating a country so much you have to invade it. At least you admit it.
But seriously. If you don't like the guy, DON'T GIVE HIM WEAPONS OR WMD IN THE FIRST PLACE. Think hard, really hard. Maybe the US actions abroad since WWII has something to do with the attitude against you, and it could be the cause behind stuff like 9/11.
You asked the question: "Why didn't the Brits get heat for the occupation of Iraq?". Part of the answer is, the Brits have a totally different attitude to the rest of the world than the Americans. And from Sweden, most of us thought that it was only Blair who was fed up with Saddam and not the actual Brits. They are the 51st state anyway.:)
The sooner you change your attitude to the rest of the world (hint: calling them bigots because the challenge your foreign policy is not a good thing) the sooner the world will change the attitude towards you.
"Therefore "I" is no longer available only from the (main) site in Stockholm, Sweden, but also from several other sites, including
- Helsinki, Finland - Milano, Italy - London, Great Britain...
We pay for all the hardware needed to deploy new sites and maintain complete administrative control over each site, but we are happy to accept help with everything else (i.e. rackspace, connectivity, IP transit, etc). Such help is actually crucial to make this expansion possible."
As you can clearly see, my Swedish tax dollars (and I pay a lot of tax) are in fact paying for the operation of the I server already.
And yes. I would happily give control over something as important as the root servers to someone else than the Swedish government. The Swedish government are wankers, just like your government, just in a different way.
It doesn't matter if soldiers aren't supposed to take pictures. Or that the army isn't idiots.
Censorship is per definition when you torture people behind closed doors away from medias eyes for instance, then you censor information. If you can't get information out of prisoners in the view of a camera, you are probably comitting war crimes. If you had pictures of how Iraqies are treated in prisons in Iraq on the 11 o'clock news, the government would loose the war on the homefront within a week.
The fact that you don't see this is the evidence of censorship. Nothing else.
Have you for instance seen, as I have on European TV, pictures of Iraqies being tortured by having the soles of their feet whipped with canes? It was a common torture method during Saddams rule, and it's still common in "free" Iraq.
I've watched a lot of CNN since the war started but I've stopped. It's all too one sided, and too far from the real truth.
"So would your television have no problem with say.....American style TV and movie violence? I don't mean the average fake looking gun shootout. I hear Europeans complaining about that all the time. Heck, in some countries over there, American games have the blood edited out, or other things edited out. But anyway, let's get back to language, you can hear a "fuck" or "shit" or "damn" or "son of a bitch" or even "asshole" on TV on certain shows. They don't get fined. You really have to go out of your way to be offensive usually to get fined."
TV doesn't have any problem with violence. The movie industry in Sweden does. Some movies are censored and some graphical violence is cut out. But that has gotten a lot better since the eighties, when it was common. Nowadays allmost all movies are uncut. Last movie I can rembered that was censored in the theaters was Terminator 2. But some of your "GTA made my kid go on a shooting spree!" has bled over here but nothing has actually happened since "The Last Ninja" which was the game that started the debate.
"So, in other words, you honestly think that the majority of the people of the world hate the people of the United States. And hate our country.... even if excluding the government that runs it."
No. Since you don't seem to speak english I will repeat myself. "A majority of the rest of the world dislike you as a whole country, government, people, soldiers abroad, christian nuts and especially the likes of RIAA and MPAA."
"That explains why I have so many foreign friends over the net that say you are so full of bullshit. I think you're just a bigot."
Oh, I'm a bigot? Especially since I'm a university teacher at an international masters program with a minority of Swedish students. The rest are, French, German, Norwegian, Icelandic, Danish, Hungarian, American, Canadian, Brittish, Italian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Mexican, from Panama, Colombian, Swiss, Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, Australian, Thai Korean and a Palestinian.
But I guess you'll just have to take my word for it.
Your attitude on the other hand is exactly what people dislike, the whole "we are the best, and we can do what the fuck we like" makes you come off like a real asshole, even though you probably are an OK guy, considering you frequent slashdot.
"You do realise that the President is Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces yes?"
Yes. But he does not have the power to start wars without being attacked.
"That's established in the Constitution. And that bill, passed through Congress, authorised the President to use military force against Iraq. So how is it exactly a violation of the Constitution?"
Incorrect. It authorized him to start war on Iraq as he saw fit. And he did so even though Iraq didn't have any WMD.
The power to start a war should lie with congress and not one man. That's the violation. If it would have been correct, there would have been a vote in congress "Should we start war with Iraq?",
"The government not letting the press into the place they keep the bodies isn't the same as censorship. The press is allowed to print what they like. In fact, they did once get ahold of a picture, taken by a soldier, of bodybags and printed it. It caused an uproar in the military as they moved to punish the soldier who took the picture. But nobody stopped the press from printing any photos nor punished them for doing so."
You do realize that you've just proven my point right? The soldier was punished (or at least they tried to). You have to account for the whole chain, not just the government. You even have to include self-censorship by media, or that soldiers are afraid to take pictures because they are afraid of punishment. It's a good thing that pictures are taken, otherwise the torture of prisoners in Abu-Graib(sp?) for instance would have gotten any justice.
I ask again. How can so many embedded reporters see so little actual killing?
"Now that's different. There are rules about basic content for such things as considered obscenity and language...but within those very general guidelines people can do whatever they want. I do think that the fine for accidental nipplage on a live event was a little stupid though. It's not censorship though, fines are applied after the fact. There are no official government censors approving what is seen. If something happens, and people complain, a fine is likely...but also likely challenged. That's very different from censorship."
Of course it's different, duh. But it's very much so censorship, and it's fueled by the fanatical Christian right, a very vocal minority.
In free countries, like in Sweden, people don't get upset if they hear fuck on TV or radio, and in fact a radioshow in sweden was swamped when they accidentally played a BLEEPed "radio-friendly" version of a song instead of the real version. People were very upset by the censorship, not the word fuck.
"So you honestly believe that most of the people of the world hate the American people? Careful now....I'm not saying government, I'm saying people."
No, that's not at all what I said.
A majority of the rest of the world dislike you as a whole country, government, people, soldiers abroad, christian nuts and especially the likes of RIAA and MPAA.
"In fact, the issue of voting on the war with Iraq was a major political issue during the last Presidential election, as John Kerry, the opponent to George Bush, had voted for going to war with Iraq....and yet strongly opposed the War in his campaign."
And this goes against the constitution! It gives the president power to invade if he wants to. Read the actual pages yourself. I'll say it again, it gives power to the president to start a war and that's not a power he should have, congress should have that power according to the constitution. Thanks for finding links that proves my point.
And in hindsight, we know he didn't attack Iraq because of 9/11, that he has admitted, we know he didn't invade because of WMD, cause there weren't any. He invaded Iraq to occupy the country and show how's boss.
"But it does. We built it, with our tax dollars, for our military....and then decided to open it to the public. That it gained popularity worldwide was a bonus. But it is our property. We made it, we paid for it."
And as with all research made public, you don't own it anymore. I belongs to the world. In fact there are 13 root DNS servers in Europe on standby if you ever decide to use that "We own the internet" argument for real.
"Stem cells are not banned at all, billions of dollars have been spent on stem cell research in the US."
Oh, so Christofer Reeves didn't fight at all then. I should have been more clear, embryonic stem cell research.
"For the CDC and condoms, maybe you could actually look at what they say, from their website: Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV,"
"I hear the word fuck all the time on tv, I see nudity all the time on tv. Not during the day on broadcast or public channels though, but I can still hear fuck and see tits if I want."
Yes, you can watch it all you want. But that's not freedom. Freedom is when people can say fuck, in the daytime, on public airwaves. You may not like it, but you should fight for.
"Kansas may be having a dicussion right now about Intelligent Design, but thats a discussion that the people of Kansas will vote on and decide, not some religious decree from a religious dictator (for the record I think ID is stupid and should not be taught), even if it was taught, thats only Kansas and parents do not have to send their children to school, they can teach them at home, or at a private school."
It's not only Kansas. Ye olde DUBBYA, has made som funny remarks. But otherwise we have the same opinion about Kansas I think.
"For you're Georgia claim, perhaps you should read the news(or at least use google): Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional, "
I am well aware of this ruling. Thank the FSM (http://www.venganza.org/ ) for that. My point was to show that these kind of decisions happen over and over again, and not all are overturned.
"and yes, half the country is against abortion (I am not) and for freeing the Iraqi people and death penalty (I am). "
Good, you are not as hypocritical as most. But stop using the term "freeing the Iraqi people". They are being sent to the same prisons and being tortured by the same people as during Saddams rule. Only difference is that nothing works in Iraq right now, since it's all been bombed.
"What censored media? We have a Press which is routinely critical of our government. We have a press which often goes to extremes to exaggerate, or to blame our Federal government for things that aren't it's fault, withhold stories to release until it's at the point where they can most hurt the people currently in power, even go to the extreme of making stuff up on occasion. If the government is censoring the media...they are doing the most incompetent job in history."
Why aren't you seeing body bags of Americans killed in Iraq on the evening news? (lesson learned from Vietnam, don't show dead Americans on TV or you'll loose the war)
How can so many "embedded" journalists see so little actual killing of people as in Iraq?
Why is there such a gigantic fine if you show a nipple on TV?
"And isn't there something basically wrong with a TV network (FOX), where the majority thinks the world around you actually like the US, even though reality is completely opposite?
What the hell are you talking about here?"
There was a survey of what people watching mostly FOX knew about the world around them. On most of the questions people watching FOX thought exactly the opposite of the truth. One of the questions was they thought foreigners though of the US, and 80% something say 'They like us', when most people outside of the US in fact dislike you. As a journalist, would you be proud of your network if a majority of of viewers believe the wrong thing most of the time? I would not.
" And most important. You went against the Constitution when you gave the President power to start war and took that power away from congress.
Really? As far as I know the Congress fully approved the War ahead of time...just as the Constitution says it's supposed to. Again, stop listening to the hype and propaganda."
Can you show a link to that vote?
I saw the footage when congress gave the president power to start any preemtive war. You should watch it too, in fact every American should, but they are not going to see it on TV (cause it's censored):
You should stop listening to your own propaganda and start contemplating how people outside the US think of you, and also why. The whole "the Internet belongs to the US!" thing is exactly why people dislike you.
"Now I am a slave to religion because MY PARENTS CHOSE to have me circumcized?"
No, but your genitals are mutilated. And you will probably mutilate your future children if you haven't already done it. And when you see the whole picture from outside you get a totally different view of how decisions are made in the US. Think; banned stem cell research, CDC not being able to say condoms are good against HIV, you can't say Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo on TV, no nipples on TV, Kansas redefining science, the whole Good/Evil thing, Georgia putting stickers saying "evolution is only a theory" on school books, half the country being against abortion but for killing Iraqies and Chriminals.
"The internet is not the UN's to take."
And Iraq isn't the USA's to take. Exactly because the US behaves as it does abroad, maybe it's time the UN sieze control over the Internet.
Oh, sorry. I forgot to mention companies that actually have bought politians. Please add the likes of RIAA, MPAA and other major corporations as a logical conclusion of 'and we're it's legal to give money to politicians to change their vote'.
Anyway, and I'm not trolling now or trying to make your argument look bad in any way, but look down between your legs. If you are male, have your genitals been mutilated when you we're a child, or do you still have a foreskin?
My point is, most American males are born into bondage by religious fanatics, and I am glad I wasn't born in America so I get to keep my foreskin, to the pleasure of me and my girlfriends, both past, present and future.
But we are getting far from the original discussion.
Freedom means that even countries that hate the US should have control over their part of the internet. I don't approve of what most non-free country's leaders say, but they should be allowed to say it even if your government don't want them to.
I get upset everytime I see Bin-Laden on al-Jazira, but I'm glad they exist.
And you should judge any country on how they treat their prisoners (think: Lyndie England, Guantanamo, Anal rape in Federal Prisons.)
"Using the pledge is an extremely weak argument that the US is a 'police state run by religious fanatics'."
You have misquoted me. Please try to include my whole sentence. Religious fanatics are only a part, albeit very vocal part, of the people running your country, and that is clearly understood if you read the whole of my comment.
"Additionally using laws in a minority of states as reason to claim the US is a 'police state run by religious fanatics' is just intellectually dishonest or shows you need a better understanding of US law before you make such outrageous claims.
Again, I would ask you to stop misquoting me.
But, both you and I know that it would be impossible for an Atheist to ever get elected as President of the US. So even if there is no technical reason for an Atheist to become President, in reality just just have to be Christian... and white.. and straight... and male.
*troll*Come back when you have a gay, atheist, female, black President. Hillary is just the first step.*/troll*
"The world would not have free access to the Internet, if it were not for the benevolent policies of that 'police state run by religious fanatics, a military industiral complex'."
Just to clarify, I didn't invent the term "military-industiral complex", Eisenhower did. Read his speech:
The ARPAnet was created by the military, the Internet by a small group of grad students, Vint Cerf being one of them.
"The WWW would not have been possible if it were not for the U.S. military's creation."
Yes it would have. Any protocol providing realiable communication between two computers in an inter-net would have made the WWW possible. As proof, look at IPv6, which is not invented by the military and it's perfectly capable of supporting the WWW.
"The world would not have free access to the Internet, if it were not for the benevolent policies of that 'police state run by religious fanatics, a military industiral complex'."
You are wrongly assuming that TCP/IPv4 is the only protocol that could power an Internet. Someone in any country could invent and implement a different protocol that would do the job just as good or better. I even think someone already has; IPv6.
"Your post is FUD."
No. I am just replying to the gross overstatement: "People laud the internet for its freedom. But the only reason the Internet is free is because the companies controlling its infrastructure are not only in a free country, but in the only country founded on individual rights."
You are not the only country founded on individual rights, the new France that revolted against the old Monarchistic France is one other example. And the TCP/IP that we happen to use, since it was the first protocol that did the job good enough, is not the only protocol that could host a free Internet. I'm not trolling or FUDing.
"The US is a police state run by religious fanatics? I know Iranians living in America that would have to restrain themselves from hitting you for saying that."
Atheists can't hold office in all states. No further discussion needed.
"America is a police state? News to me. This is a land where buying books about Nazi regalia, purely for the historical context, is legal, or you can buy books about explosives, or drugs, or books critical of our government, even books saying it should be overthrown....because we don't ban books here. Unlike in certain other "Free, Western" nations. This is a country where citizens can legally own M-16s. This is a country where anyone can express any political opinion they wish, even call the leadership evil...without being jailed. This is a country where people can vote for or join whatever political party they wish (even if it has a snowball's chance in hell), including the Nazi or Communist parties....without being jailed. And this is a country where people can be any religion they wish, there are various Neo-Pagans, Jews, Muslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Vodunists, and people of many other faiths...there's no law against it, there's no government oppression. Sure most are Christians of some sort or another...but most of those aren't even Fundamentalists of any stripe."
Yes, but if you're an atheist, you can't hold office in some states.
And in some states you even redefine science to fit better with Christianity.
"Where? Where is the fucking "police state" you are bitching about? I don't see it. If it were here, we'd overthrow it because Americans are culturally intolerant of tyranny."
No, you are a country living in constant fear, because that's the way you control a supposed democracy. You're not even a working democracy since your system doesn't allow for a third party to ever get any control over congress. What happens if both parties are wankers? And even if the majority, votes for one guy, crooked voting machines, brothers, crooked voting officials, TV-station chiefs and Judges can sway the vote so the other guys wins. Or you could just buy a polititian.
Have you tried to come into the US as a non US citizen. You'll notice the changes that have occured the last years. Have you tried to take a picture of a bridge as a tourist? Have you tried to put you bags away in a locker when you are visiting New York? Do you know how many cameras have spied upon you, a la 1984, when you transported yourself from one part of town to the other?
And what about your censored media? You learned your lesson in the Vietnam war. If you show body bags with US soilders on TV you loose the war. How many of the 1900+ soldiers dead in Iraq have you seen in a body bag on TV? And isn't there something basically wrong with a TV network (FOX), where the majority thinks the world around you actually like the US, even though reality is completely opposite?
And most important. You went against the Constitution when you gave the President power to start war and took that power away from congress.
Me, I'm never going back. I refuse to leave my finger print as a common criminal.
"There are so many things wrong with this is is not even funny. First of all, almost all pentagon research is done by academics, so it's really silly to say that academics run things better than the pentagon."
Vint Cerf, graduate student at UCLA co-authored TCP/IP, which is the foundation of the Internet. Yes, it built on the ARPAnet, but then again, all research builds on what others have done before. Although the graduate students didn't really know what the internet would become, but that's beside the point. Had this neen a skunk work, someone else would have created an open project that would have evolved into the internet.
"Second of all, the WWW was NOT, repeat NOT, regardless of what you may have red in Dan Browns Angels and Demons, created by an academic working in switzerland. This is categorically not true, and the fact that it is not true is so well documented that I should not have to ever correct anyone about this. The invention of HTML has very little to do with the creation of the internet. First of all, hypertext was around long before HTML, and hypertext files could already be transmitted over the (existing) internet. This is merely another standard for turing text into page layouts, which happens to be in widespread use. It is a small part of the internet at best."
Again, Tim Berners-Lee, built upon previous research, hypertext, which you are confusing with the WWW, but he did invent the WWW as we know it, created HTML and wrote the first web server and working graphical browser. And he worked at CERN. My point was not that he invented the Internet, which he didn't, but that he created something royalty free that became the WWW, as opposed to Skype which always will be controlled by Ebay.
People laud the internet for its freedom. But the only reason the Internet is free is because the companies controlling its infrastructure are not only in a free country, but in the only country founded on individual rights.
No! The only reason the Internet is free is that it was pioneered by academics, and in the academic world there has been freedom and peer review for a long time.
Look at how the world wide web was created, not by Pentagon but by an academic working in Switzerland. Free as in speech.
Now compare that to Skype, which was created in a company and is now in the hands of Ebay. Not free as in speech.
And stop abusing the word freedom. The US is not a free country, it's a police state run by religious fanatics, a military industiral complex and we're it's legal to give money to politicians to change their vote (usually called bribery in other countries). I'm a Swede but I lived in the US as a kid, now I can never go back without being treated like a criminal leaving fingerprints at the border. And you'll never give freedom to Iraq within our lifetime, you are there to stay.
A colleage and I were discussing this and wondering if you could use this to place free calls from anywhere in your respective country. Imagine having 2 cell phones, both with an account that has free calls between accounts of the same kind, for instance 'Comviq Kompis' here in Sweden.
Then make a setup like this:
Your cell -> free call -> Phone at home -> Computer with Skype
If it is possible to use this device as a bridge you can make free calls to anyone on Skype from anywhere in your country. You could even get your phone at home to phone you up with Skype calls.
"Don't you think that it might be possible to use a catalyst in the electrolysis reaction and actually have it require less energy to split the H2O than you would get by reforming it?"
No! That would not be possible since it would violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, and you don't even wanna mess with that, MacDaddy.
Stephen Jay Gould is really not a good example of whom to learn about evolution from.
Most people think he is way off on the subject of evolution, yes he might be against ID, but not really an asset when you talk about evolution.
I for one think he is one of the reasons behind the notion that evolution still is disputed, cause his views are far from the views of most biologists outside of the US.
"The government has spent millions of pounds to change public awareness of drink-driving and smoking.
"As a society, we need to go through a similar process for creativity and intellectual property."
No, the government does not have to spend millions of pounds to change public awareness in this case, because copyright infringement doesn't kill people, drink-driving and smoking does! Shame on anyone who mentions lining-the-pockets-of-media-companies and drink-driving in the same argument
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you should say that. What gives you the right to control another country's domain?
And how would that be different from them not having control over their domain cause you have control exactly? Given the choice between you and the UN, the rest of the world chooses the UN, the lesser of two evils.
Sorry to hear about your brother. Yes, this kinda stuff goes on in Sweden as well, but to a much lesser degree. Last person to get killed during interogation was 10 years ago (Osmo Vallo). Last cop to get killed on the street was 5-7 years ago (Jackie Arklöv killed 2 cops chasing them after a bank robbery).
And I've never even heard of anal rape in Swedish prisons.
The thing is that violence breeds violence. Since cops in Sweden generally don't shoot first and ask questions later, they rarely get killed, and neither the suspects. And since there isn't much anal rape and shit in Swedish prisons, where the guards don't have guns btw, ex-cons actually have a chance of getting out seminormal. And your whole war-on-drugs is fueling new generations of fuckups to roam your streets.
And the fact that other countries use torture does make torture less of a crime. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
The thing with Guantanamo isn't really the methods of interogation, it's that people don't get charged for anything even after several years. It took at least 2 years before the Swedish guy you had in there got released and he was never charged. That is a violation of human rights.
And Guantanamo isn't even half of the problem. The problem is all prisons in Iraq that are torturing people to death, and who gets sent to prison seems to be totally random. This one Swedish citizen, who fled from Iraq during Saddam went back, was arrested and they pulled out all his finger- and toenails, and electrocuted his genitals. That shit is fucked up, and 'You' are still over there. Is that shit freedom really?
All of which you can keep. All the old stuff from the NSFnet years is obsolete anyway. And again, it's not about the infrastructure at all, but about control. Verisign will stil own the stuff, but ICANN won't be able to turn of a country.
Again. You can keep the old stuff all you want. It's not in operation anymore.
$0 in cash went to the country Niue who should have owned the
No need for further argumentation on **AA as we are the same page there.
Just just don't seem to get it. You will still own the infrastructure. It about CONTROL! It a about freedom for one country to have control over their own domain. How can you be against freedom?
You seem to lack a firm grasp on the English language. The 'You' in this case was in plural, meaning 'You' Americans as a country. 'You' torture people in Iraq and on Guantanamo, both two places 'You' control. That's a war crime, and 'You' as a people should make it stop.
The thing is, it's not tax payer dollars which have payed for most of the infrastucture. It's company dollars like Verisign. And they get payed from all over the world. And in some cases it's not dollars at all but as I could show, Swedish tax Kronors.
.nu TLD, especially since it was popular in sweden since 'nu' means 'now' in Swedish.
And this isn't about the infrastucture at all really. The actual servers will be in the same spot run by the same people. It's about control.
The infrastucture hasn't been payed by tax dollars for a very long time, it's been payed by companies. And often Americans have stolen money belonging to other countries. The guys living on he Island Niue were pretty pissed that an American was hogging all the money for the
Wake up to the music, the world don't like you saying "We can do what we want!".
And that's the whole point of this flame war.
The side issue of the occupation of Iraq is just to show a recuring pattern of the US trying to force it's view on the world. Same thing with RIAA and MPAA, and software patents. Why do you think there is such resistance against patents in Europe? We tend to have smaller and less litigious companies that would be killed if software patens were allowed.
And you _don't_ own the technology. As soon as it's an RFC, the world owns it.
And seriously. You should stop torturing people. For real.
Cat got your tounge when I could show you didn't own all the infrastructure?
You are just too blind.
:)
You do not have free media. It it way more controlled than you think, doesn't matter if it's a combination of government, one of the two parties, or giant media companies. The minute the media doesn't give you the truth, they are doing something wrong.
And you haven't seen even the tip of the iceberg of abuse that is going on. Lyndie England is not enough.
I am a hypocrit? How? I'm against all forms of censorship, even the swedish film industry. I want _all_ the blood and gore. *turning on GTA:SA now*
About the bigot thing. You are just wrong. Not even gonna touch that.
"Either you are just not understanding right (possibly, given you are not a native speaker of English, let alone the American dialect, let alone American legalese...) or you are being incredibly pedantic."
Trust me. You would not be able to tell I'm not american if you heard me speak. It looks like you are the bigot here. (hint: I've lived in the US, all A student including english)
And there is a BIG difference between congress declaring war on a country, and giving that power to the president. It's not their power to give away according to the constitution. Please at least try to understand.
Yes, the revolution was fundamentalist from the start. That's what I said. The Ayatolla took over.
And yes, there might have been an old dispute, but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was afraid of the revolution spreading. Please show some facts that he wasn't afraid.
And you admit that you gave weapons to both sides. That's exactly what I said. Good. We agree.
Does it matter if it takes 1 week or 10 years between the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait? Do chemical and biological weapons given to Saddam stop working after a couple of years? You gave them to him. Along with all other weapons. You gave weapons to him, later he turned and invaded a friendly neighbour.
And please. Everyone know the Pentagon would have been pleased as punch if you could have gone all the way to Bagdad. Why the hell did you think the Bush administration tried to spin the 9/11 to occupy Iraq? Go see "Why We Fight" and hear it from operatives in the Pentagon yourself.
Minor breaches is not the thing the congress gave the president reason to go into Iraq for. And the Bush administration knew there weren't any WMD, it was all a lie. Especially Rumsfelt saying: "The whole world knows [Saddam] has weapons of mass destruction."
"I might add that most of America was getting fed up with the prick, not just Bush."
You bigot. Hating a country so much you have to invade it. At least you admit it.
But seriously. If you don't like the guy, DON'T GIVE HIM WEAPONS OR WMD IN THE FIRST PLACE. Think hard, really hard. Maybe the US actions abroad since WWII has something to do with the attitude against you, and it could be the cause behind stuff like 9/11.
You asked the question: "Why didn't the Brits get heat for the occupation of Iraq?". Part of the answer is, the Brits have a totally different attitude to the rest of the world than the Americans. And from Sweden, most of us thought that it was only Blair who was fed up with Saddam and not the actual Brits. They are the 51st state anyway.
The sooner you change your attitude to the rest of the world (hint: calling them bigots because the challenge your foreign policy is not a good thing) the sooner the world will change the attitude towards you.
Exactly. We already have the infrastructure.
...
But it's absurd that US tax dollars are paying all the costs for the existing DNS root servers. Want proof?
http://i.root-servers.org/
"Therefore "I" is no longer available only from the (main) site in Stockholm, Sweden, but also from several other
sites, including
- Helsinki, Finland
- Milano, Italy
- London, Great Britain
We pay for all the hardware needed to deploy new sites and maintain complete administrative control over each site, but we are happy to accept help with everything else (i.e. rackspace, connectivity, IP transit, etc). Such help is actually crucial to make this expansion possible."
As you can clearly see, my Swedish tax dollars (and I pay a lot of tax) are in fact paying for the operation of the I server already.
And yes. I would happily give control over something as important as the root servers to someone else than the Swedish government. The Swedish government are wankers, just like your government, just in a different way.
[whole thing about photographs]
It doesn't matter if soldiers aren't supposed to take pictures. Or that the army isn't idiots.
Censorship is per definition when you torture people behind closed doors away from medias eyes for instance, then you censor information. If you can't get information out of prisoners in the view of a camera, you are probably comitting war crimes. If you had pictures of how Iraqies are treated in prisons in Iraq on the 11 o'clock news, the government would loose the war on the homefront within a week.
The fact that you don't see this is the evidence of censorship. Nothing else.
Have you for instance seen, as I have on European TV, pictures of Iraqies being tortured by having the soles of their feet whipped with canes? It was a common torture method during Saddams rule, and it's still common in "free" Iraq.
I've watched a lot of CNN since the war started but I've stopped. It's all too one sided, and too far from the real truth.
"So would your television have no problem with say.....American style TV and movie violence? I don't mean the average fake looking gun shootout. I hear Europeans complaining about that all the time. Heck, in some countries over there, American games have the blood edited out, or other things edited out. But anyway, let's get back to language, you can hear a "fuck" or "shit" or "damn" or "son of a bitch" or even "asshole" on TV on certain shows. They don't get fined. You really have to go out of your way to be offensive usually to get fined."
TV doesn't have any problem with violence. The movie industry in Sweden does. Some movies are censored and some graphical violence is cut out. But that has gotten a lot better since the eighties, when it was common. Nowadays allmost all movies are uncut. Last movie I can rembered that was censored in the theaters was Terminator 2. But some of your "GTA made my kid go on a shooting spree!" has bled over here but nothing has actually happened since "The Last Ninja" which was the game that started the debate.
"So, in other words, you honestly think that the majority of the people of the world hate the people of the United States. And hate our country.... even if excluding the government that runs it."
No. Since you don't seem to speak english I will repeat myself. "A majority of the rest of the world dislike you as a whole country, government, people, soldiers abroad, christian nuts and especially the likes of RIAA and MPAA."
"That explains why I have so many foreign friends over the net that say you are so full of bullshit. I think you're just a bigot."
Oh, I'm a bigot? Especially since I'm a university teacher at an international masters program with a minority of Swedish students. The rest are, French, German, Norwegian, Icelandic, Danish, Hungarian, American, Canadian, Brittish, Italian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Mexican, from Panama, Colombian, Swiss, Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, Australian, Thai Korean and a Palestinian.
But I guess you'll just have to take my word for it.
Your attitude on the other hand is exactly what people dislike, the whole "we are the best, and we can do what the fuck we like" makes you come off like a real asshole, even though you probably are an OK guy, considering you frequent slashdot.
"You do realise that the President is Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces yes?"
Yes. But he does not have the power to start wars without being attacked.
"That's established in the Constitution. And that bill, passed through Congress, authorised the President to use military force against Iraq. So how is it exactly a violation of the Constitution?"
Incorrect. It authorized him to start war on Iraq as he saw fit. And he did so even though Iraq didn't have any WMD.
The power to start a war should lie with congress and not one man. That's the violation. If it would have been correct, there would have been a vote in congress "Should we start war with Iraq?",
"The government not letting the press into the place they keep the bodies isn't the same as censorship. The press is allowed to print what they like. In fact, they did once get ahold of a picture, taken by a soldier, of bodybags and printed it. It caused an uproar in the military as they moved to punish the soldier who took the picture. But nobody stopped the press from printing any photos nor punished them for doing so."
You do realize that you've just proven my point right? The soldier was punished (or at least they tried to). You have to account for the whole chain, not just the government. You even have to include self-censorship by media, or that soldiers are afraid to take pictures because they are afraid of punishment. It's a good thing that pictures are taken, otherwise the torture of prisoners in Abu-Graib(sp?) for instance would have gotten any justice.
I ask again. How can so many embedded reporters see so little actual killing?
"Now that's different. There are rules about basic content for such things as considered obscenity and language...but within those very general guidelines people can do whatever they want. I do think that the fine for accidental nipplage on a live event was a little stupid though. It's not censorship though, fines are applied after the fact. There are no official government censors approving what is seen. If something happens, and people complain, a fine is likely...but also likely challenged. That's very different from censorship."
Of course it's different, duh. But it's very much so censorship, and it's fueled by the fanatical Christian right, a very vocal minority.
In free countries, like in Sweden, people don't get upset if they hear fuck on TV or radio, and in fact a radioshow in sweden was swamped when they accidentally played a BLEEPed "radio-friendly" version of a song instead of the real version. People were very upset by the censorship, not the word fuck.
"So you honestly believe that most of the people of the world hate the American people? Careful now....I'm not saying government, I'm saying people."
No, that's not at all what I said.
A majority of the rest of the world dislike you as a whole country, government, people, soldiers abroad, christian nuts and especially the likes of RIAA and MPAA.
"In fact, the issue of voting on the war with Iraq was a major political issue during the last Presidential election, as John Kerry, the opponent to George Bush, had voted for going to war with Iraq....and yet strongly opposed the War in his campaign."
And this goes against the constitution! It gives the president power to invade if he wants to. Read the actual pages yourself. I'll say it again, it gives power to the president to start a war and that's not a power he should have, congress should have that power according to the constitution. Thanks for finding links that proves my point.
And in hindsight, we know he didn't attack Iraq because of 9/11, that he has admitted, we know he didn't invade because of WMD, cause there weren't any. He invaded Iraq to occupy the country and show how's boss.
"But it does. We built it, with our tax dollars, for our military....and then decided to open it to the public. That it gained popularity worldwide was a bonus. But it is our property. We made it, we paid for it."
And as with all research made public, you don't own it anymore. I belongs to the world. In fact there are 13 root DNS servers in Europe on standby if you ever decide to use that "We own the internet" argument for real.
http://www.orsn.org/
"Stem cells are not banned at all, billions of dollars have been spent on stem cell research in the US."
c s_and_science/example_condoms.htm
c le/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html
Oh, so Christofer Reeves didn't fight at all then. I should have been more clear, embryonic stem cell research.
"For the CDC and condoms, maybe you could actually look at what they say, from their website: Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV,"
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politi
"I hear the word fuck all the time on tv, I see nudity all the time on tv. Not during the day on broadcast or public channels though, but I can still hear fuck and see tits if I want."
Yes, you can watch it all you want. But that's not freedom. Freedom is when people can say fuck, in the daytime, on public airwaves. You may not like it, but you should fight for.
"Kansas may be having a dicussion right now about Intelligent Design, but thats a discussion that the people of Kansas will vote on and decide, not some religious decree from a religious dictator (for the record I think ID is stupid and should not be taught), even if it was taught, thats only Kansas and parents do not have to send their children to school, they can teach them at home, or at a private school."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
It's not only Kansas. Ye olde DUBBYA, has made som funny remarks. But otherwise we have the same opinion about Kansas I think.
"For you're Georgia claim, perhaps you should read the news(or at least use google): Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional, "
I am well aware of this ruling. Thank the FSM (http://www.venganza.org/ ) for that. My point was to show that these kind of decisions happen over and over again, and not all are overturned.
"and yes, half the country is against abortion (I am not) and for freeing the Iraqi people and death penalty (I am). "
Good, you are not as hypocritical as most. But stop using the term "freeing the Iraqi people". They are being sent to the same prisons and being tortured by the same people as during Saddams rule. Only difference is that nothing works in Iraq right now, since it's all been bombed.
"What censored media? We have a Press which is routinely critical of our government. We have a press which often goes to extremes to exaggerate, or to blame our Federal government for things that aren't it's fault, withhold stories to release until it's at the point where they can most hurt the people currently in power, even go to the extreme of making stuff up on occasion. If the government is censoring the media...they are doing the most incompetent job in history."
Why aren't you seeing body bags of Americans killed in Iraq on the evening news? (lesson learned from Vietnam, don't show dead Americans on TV or you'll loose the war)
How can so many "embedded" journalists see so little actual killing of people as in Iraq?
Why is there such a gigantic fine if you show a nipple on TV?
"And isn't there something basically wrong with a TV network (FOX), where the majority thinks the world around you actually like the US, even though reality is completely opposite?
What the hell are you talking about here?"
There was a survey of what people watching mostly FOX knew about the world around them. On most of the questions people watching FOX thought exactly the opposite of the truth. One of the questions was they thought foreigners though of the US, and 80% something say 'They like us', when most people outside of the US in fact dislike you. As a journalist, would you be proud of your network if a majority of of viewers believe the wrong thing most of the time? I would not.
" And most important. You went against the Constitution when you gave the President power to start war and took that power away from congress.
Really? As far as I know the Congress fully approved the War ahead of time...just as the Constitution says it's supposed to. Again, stop listening to the hype and propaganda."
Can you show a link to that vote?
I saw the footage when congress gave the president power to start any preemtive war.
You should watch it too, in fact every American should, but they are not going to see it on TV (cause it's censored):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/#comment
You should stop listening to your own propaganda and start contemplating how people outside the US think of you, and also why. The whole "the Internet belongs to the US!" thing is exactly why people dislike you.
"Now I am a slave to religion because MY PARENTS CHOSE to have me circumcized?"
No, but your genitals are mutilated. And you will probably mutilate your future children if you haven't already done it. And when you see the whole picture from outside you get a totally different view of how decisions are made in the US. Think; banned stem cell research, CDC not being able to say condoms are good against HIV, you can't say Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo on TV, no nipples on TV, Kansas redefining science, the whole Good/Evil thing, Georgia putting stickers saying "evolution is only a theory" on school books, half the country being against abortion but for killing Iraqies and Chriminals.
"The internet is not the UN's to take."
And Iraq isn't the USA's to take. Exactly because the US behaves as it does abroad, maybe it's time the UN sieze control over the Internet.
Oh, sorry. I forgot to mention companies that actually have bought politians. Please add the likes of RIAA, MPAA and other major corporations as a logical conclusion of 'and we're it's legal to give money to politicians to change their vote'.
Anyway, and I'm not trolling now or trying to make your argument look bad in any way, but look down between your legs. If you are male, have your genitals been mutilated when you we're a child, or do you still have a foreskin?
My point is, most American males are born into bondage by religious fanatics, and I am glad I wasn't born in America so I get to keep my foreskin, to the pleasure of me and my girlfriends, both past, present and future.
But we are getting far from the original discussion.
Freedom means that even countries that hate the US should have control over their part of the internet. I don't approve of what most non-free country's leaders say, but they should be allowed to say it even if your government don't want them to.
I get upset everytime I see Bin-Laden on al-Jazira, but I'm glad they exist.
And you should judge any country on how they treat their prisoners (think: Lyndie England, Guantanamo, Anal rape in Federal Prisons.)
"Using the pledge is an extremely weak argument that the US is a 'police state run by religious fanatics'."
You have misquoted me. Please try to include my whole sentence. Religious fanatics are only a part, albeit very vocal part, of the people running your country, and that is clearly understood if you read the whole of my comment.
"Additionally using laws in a minority of states as reason to claim the US is a 'police state run by religious fanatics' is just intellectually dishonest or shows you need a better understanding of US law before you make such outrageous claims.
Again, I would ask you to stop misquoting me.
But, both you and I know that it would be impossible for an Atheist to ever get elected as President of the US. So even if there is no technical reason for an Atheist to become President, in reality just just have to be Christian... and white.. and straight... and male.
*troll*Come back when you have a gay, atheist, female, black President. Hillary is just the first step.*/troll*
"The world would not have free access to the Internet, if it were not for the benevolent policies of that 'police state run by religious fanatics, a military industiral complex'."
i ndust.html
Just to clarify, I didn't invent the term "military-industiral complex", Eisenhower did. Read his speech:
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/
The pledge of allegiance still forces anyone growing up to pledge "under God".
Kansas redefined science to better suit their religion.
And why are the constitutions allowed to keep the anti-atheism clauses?
"The Internet was created by the U.S. military."
The ARPAnet was created by the military, the Internet by a small group of grad students, Vint Cerf being one of them.
"The WWW would not have been possible if it were not for the U.S. military's creation."
Yes it would have. Any protocol providing realiable communication between two computers in an inter-net would have made the WWW possible. As proof, look at IPv6, which is not invented by the military and it's perfectly capable of supporting the WWW.
"The world would not have free access to the Internet, if it were not for the benevolent policies of that 'police state run by religious fanatics, a military industiral complex'."
You are wrongly assuming that TCP/IPv4 is the only protocol that could power an Internet. Someone in any country could invent and implement a different protocol that would do the job just as good or better. I even think someone already has; IPv6.
"Your post is FUD."
No. I am just replying to the gross overstatement: "People laud the internet for its freedom. But the only reason the Internet is free is because the companies controlling its infrastructure are not only in a free country, but in the only country founded on individual rights."
You are not the only country founded on individual rights, the new France that revolted against the old Monarchistic France is one other example. And the TCP/IP that we happen to use, since it was the first protocol that did the job good enough, is not the only protocol that could host a free Internet. I'm not trolling or FUDing.
"The US is a police state run by religious fanatics? I know Iranians living in America that would have to restrain themselves from hitting you for saying that."
Atheists can't hold office in all states. No further discussion needed.
"America is a police state? News to me. This is a land where buying books about Nazi regalia, purely for the historical context, is legal, or you can buy books about explosives, or drugs, or books critical of our government, even books saying it should be overthrown....because we don't ban books here. Unlike in certain other "Free, Western" nations. This is a country where citizens can legally own M-16s. This is a country where anyone can express any political opinion they wish, even call the leadership evil...without being jailed. This is a country where people can vote for or join whatever political party they wish (even if it has a snowball's chance in hell), including the Nazi or Communist parties....without being jailed. And this is a country where people can be any religion they wish, there are various Neo-Pagans, Jews, Muslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Vodunists, and people of many other faiths...there's no law against it, there's no government oppression. Sure most are Christians of some sort or another...but most of those aren't even Fundamentalists of any stripe."
o ns2.htm
Yes, but if you're an atheist, you can't hold office in some states.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstituti
And in some states you even redefine science to fit better with Christianity.
"Where? Where is the fucking "police state" you are bitching about? I don't see it. If it were here, we'd overthrow it because Americans are culturally intolerant of tyranny."
No, you are a country living in constant fear, because that's the way you control a supposed democracy. You're not even a working democracy since your system doesn't allow for a third party to ever get any control over congress. What happens if both parties are wankers? And even if the majority, votes for one guy, crooked voting machines, brothers, crooked voting officials, TV-station chiefs and Judges can sway the vote so the other guys wins. Or you could just buy a polititian.
Have you tried to come into the US as a non US citizen. You'll notice the changes that have occured the last years. Have you tried to take a picture of a bridge as a tourist? Have you tried to put you bags away in a locker when you are visiting New York? Do you know how many cameras have spied upon you, a la 1984, when you transported yourself from one part of town to the other?
And what about your censored media? You learned your lesson in the Vietnam war. If you show body bags with US soilders on TV you loose the war. How many of the 1900+ soldiers dead in Iraq have you seen in a body bag on TV? And isn't there something basically wrong with a TV network (FOX), where the majority thinks the world around you actually like the US, even though reality is completely opposite?
And most important. You went against the Constitution when you gave the President power to start war and took that power away from congress.
Me, I'm never going back. I refuse to leave my finger print as a common criminal.
"There are so many things wrong with this is is not even funny. First of all, almost all pentagon research is done by academics, so it's really silly to say that academics run things better than the pentagon."
http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/cerf.html
Vint Cerf, graduate student at UCLA co-authored TCP/IP, which is the foundation of the Internet. Yes, it built on the ARPAnet, but then again, all research builds on what others have done before. Although the graduate students didn't really know what the internet would become, but that's beside the point. Had this neen a skunk work, someone else would have created an open project that would have evolved into the internet.
"Second of all, the WWW was NOT, repeat NOT, regardless of what you may have red in Dan Browns Angels and Demons, created by an academic working in switzerland. This is categorically not true, and the fact that it is not true is so well documented that I should not have to ever correct anyone about this. The invention of HTML has very little to do with the creation of the internet. First of all, hypertext was around long before HTML, and hypertext files could already be transmitted over the (existing) internet. This is merely another standard for turing text into page layouts, which happens to be in widespread use. It is a small part of the internet at best."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_berners-lee
Again, Tim Berners-Lee, built upon previous research, hypertext, which you are confusing with the WWW, but he did invent the WWW as we know it, created HTML and wrote the first web server and working graphical browser. And he worked at CERN. My point was not that he invented the Internet, which he didn't, but that he created something royalty free that became the WWW, as opposed to Skype which always will be controlled by Ebay.
People laud the internet for its freedom. But the only reason the Internet is free is because the companies controlling its infrastructure are not only in a free country, but in the only country founded on individual rights.
No! The only reason the Internet is free is that it was pioneered by academics, and in the academic world there has been freedom and peer review for a long time.
Look at how the world wide web was created, not by Pentagon but by an academic working in Switzerland. Free as in speech.
Now compare that to Skype, which was created in a company and is now in the hands of Ebay. Not free as in speech.
And stop abusing the word freedom. The US is not a free country, it's a police state run by religious fanatics, a military industiral complex and we're it's legal to give money to politicians to change their vote (usually called bribery in other countries). I'm a Swede but I lived in the US as a kid, now I can never go back without being treated like a criminal leaving fingerprints at the border. And you'll never give freedom to Iraq within our lifetime, you are there to stay.
A colleage and I were discussing this and wondering if you could use this to place free calls from anywhere in your respective country. Imagine having 2 cell phones, both with an account that has free calls between accounts of the same kind, for instance 'Comviq Kompis' here in Sweden.
Then make a setup like this:
Your cell -> free call -> Phone at home -> Computer with Skype
If it is possible to use this device as a bridge you can make free calls to anyone on Skype from anywhere in your country. You could even get your phone at home to phone you up with Skype calls.
3. ---
4. Profit
That one is an old version. Get Edition 4 here instead:
http://opengl.org/documentation/red_book_1.0/
Don't know if the fifth is online yet.
"Don't you think that it might be possible to use a catalyst in the electrolysis reaction and actually have it require less energy to split the H2O than you would get by reforming it?"
No! That would not be possible since it would violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, and you don't even wanna mess with that, MacDaddy.
1st Law of Thermodynamics
Stephen Jay Gould is really not a good example of whom to learn about evolution from.
s -archive/Catalano/the_g_files.shtml
s -archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1990-02-25wonderful. shtml
Most people think he is way off on the subject of evolution, yes he might be against ID, but not really an asset when you talk about evolution.
I for one think he is one of the reasons behind the notion that evolution still is disputed, cause his views are far from the views of most biologists outside of the US.
Instead, read some books by Richard Dawkins.
Here are some files about what people think of Stephen Jay Gould:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkin
Especially read these:
http://www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htm
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkin
From TFA:
"The government has spent millions of pounds to change public awareness of drink-driving and smoking.
"As a society, we need to go through a similar process for creativity and intellectual property."
No, the government does not have to spend millions of pounds to change public awareness in this case, because copyright infringement doesn't kill people, drink-driving and smoking does! Shame on anyone who mentions lining-the-pockets-of-media-companies and drink-driving in the same argument