You have a point. Having airwaves owned by governments is a Bad Thing. Having them regulated by government agencies is also a bad thing, as that is just like the ownership - if you can regualte something you by implication have ownership of it. How about letting nature take its course and waiting for a non-government ownership model to arise? Spontanious order and all that?
If you follow the ports commits, you will see changes to openoffice almost ever hour. I did a make clean (on openoffice) and cvsupped ports and the build got all the way to to it telling me me to add
onto the end of my kernel config - so the java stuff all worked this time. Now I'm just waiting for the kernel and then hopefully it should be straight through (probably until morning:-))
So far this is going better than Gnome. Now that was painful...
Yes, its very news worthy. Every cracker and script-kiddie out there is putting gopher links into the sites as we speak. Just because people don't use gopher any more doesn't mean you can't put a link into a webpage.
Hope ya got a fat pipe. The source file on that thing is BIG! Something like 116 Meg
Yeah, 1Mb cable modem:-)
Downloading the stuff from Sun is a real pain. Remind me to never ever buy stuff from Sun. Their website has to be the most anti-customer/user in the world. IBM's is so much better.
Got to: In file included from ../../../src/solaris/native/sun/awt/awt_AWTEvent .c : 8:../../../src/solaris/native/sun/awt/awt_p.h:289 : syntax error before int'
in declaration of /usr/ports/java/jdk13/work/j2sdk1.3.1/make/sun/a wt '
gmake[2]: *** [optimized] Error 2
gmake[2]: Leaving directory /usr/ports/java/jdk13/work/j2sdk1.3.1/make/sun'
gmake: *** [all] Error 1
*** Error code 2
Stop in/usr/ports/java/jdk13.
*** Error code 1
Stop in/usr/ports/editors/openoffice.
#
The parent post is one of the most intelligent things said yet. The urge of groups of humans to regulate and control always comes with artificial scarcity and attempts to overthrow naturally evolved systems. The original redistributers were probably people tending goats in a clearing in a forest. When the grass was used up the village elders would decide to regulate how many goats each family could own, killing the goat of families over quota. When all along there was forest just waiting to be cleared, and property with fences would have solved all their problems. One thing you can guraantee is that not a single working goatheard or forrester would have been party to the decision to restrict. Just as with DNS today, where congresmen and CEOs think to rule on matters they know nothing about, creating scarcity in abundance, and hence more power for themselves.
I'm with you. I've run DNS servers before, I'm ready to go for it and f*** and all these government types who think they can take over DNS. I'm on a static IP address with 256Kb up so I could afford to run a small DNS service on it. And this time round no.gov,.mil,.gov.uk, (spit).police.uk or anything like that. Thay can have.org's and be grateful for it.
So much of the illiberal and increasing fascistic stuff that has been happening in DNS-land - the farce about the South African government trying to take over.za, ICANN trying to get rid of elected representitives and require their services to be used by law - stems from one very simply problem - people with power want power over DNS, even though they don't understand anything about it and have never administered an nameserver.
They see things like.com,.au,.uk and.za and they think becuase it is used in marketing slogans it can be made into something that that belongs to them them - with the site DNS-admin paying them $200 a time he make a change in his own zone files.
But it doesn't have to be like that: there is no reason why anyone should use the ICANN root.
What we need to do is set up independent roots and tld that are out of these people's graspming reach. The prospect of.za disappearing off DNS if the South African government can't accept that it is just not theirs to steal would be a start. But it is more important to start using competing roots now, so their is a diversity of choice for when the government/ICANN rentseekers come to take over your DNS server and pass laws about who you can resolve off. Then they'll have to back off..
You don't know what you are talking about and have obviously never administerd a DNS domain.
DNS is a distrubuted database lookup service. It doesn't belong to any country and doesn't have any status other than being more conveniant than aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd numbers. Anyone can, and people sometimes do, set a DNS root or a TLD.
It required the co-operation of other DNS administrators around the world (and not just in a titchy little backwater like South Africa) for the information about what hostname equals what number to be meaningful. It is not some farm on the veld that can be seized by a bunch of rent-seeking criminals -.za is not propertery.
Just because it looks like it could be grabbed does not actually mean it can be, not least because you have people like me in other countries who just won't accept that kind of abusive behavior - and without our support it is useless to you.
Start doing things properly of be cut off: a lesson for the whole of Southern Africa IMO.
I don't see anyone doing this with 802.11b. With modern multipoint transmission technologies there is no advantage at all in deliberately blocking other people's signals. Come on, half of you all must be using 802.11b anyway, and all you can all go on about is pornographers interupting childrens tv to advertise sex-toys. It doesn't make any sense and it doesn't happen in the real world.
The trouble is is that you are talking about the technology of 60 to 70 years ago. The point the article makes is that in the modern world it is just an anachronism, rather like a lot of what the government does. Technology has moved on and there isn't a call for the solutions of 70 years ago - solution that in all fairness were enforced by governments ultimately grabbing hold of the medium for propaganda in the run up to WWII. Merely because ham radio was ruined by "the tradgerdy of the commons" doesn't mean that all non-government wavebands have to be commons. In fact, can you think of a single common not held there by a government agaency anyway? Freeing the spectum from the FCC would not necessarliy give way to a commons, any more than property would revert to commons without the IRS. In fact life would be a lot easier.
Ah, but I'm not suggesting uncontrolled bands. I'm suggesting that frequencies should not, never have been controlled by the government. There is a subtle difference.
There are plenty of ways free agents can control unlimited broadcasting - just look at the Usenet Death Penalty. In the most recent case, the UK cable company Blueyonder was allowing unlimited news relays off its cable-modem customers. With the threat of the U.D.P. from other ISPs worldwide they voluntarily isolated their network from Usenet and started to clean up their act.
There is every reason to think that broadcasting would be the same. Merely broadcasting on someone elses band in a given area (with areas getting smaller with the wavelength) is merely inviting a blocking transmission from everyone else - so it would achive nothing and the rights of existing broadcasters would be upheld. Very soon people would respect wavebands as much as they do now.
I don't buy the big winge about cops and ambulances. Why can't they use a modern technology like voice over 802.11b or at least make some attempt to drag themselves out of the 1930s? Both the police and healthcare providers should have the same rights as other citizens, no more.
You people always come out with the maxi-min argument. You talk about well trained fire departments, but you ignore times when they don't turn up for 30 minutes, leaving people to burn to death, or hold whole cities to randsom for higher pay demands.
Similarly you talk about fighting a fire with nothing more than a fire extinguisher - why the hell wouldn't a commercial service exist like with everything else you need? Fire protection would become a branch of the insurance industry like it was in the past.
It should never have happened. As pointed out above, government usurption of radio transmission is just another 20th Century fraud. There isn't anything *about* airwaves that means they could become the property of some official - after all, they have never actually stamped out "pirate" radio (note how they use the same terminolgy today for software). Left to free agents frequancy wavebands settle into agreed usage and custom leading to tradeable ownership, like everything else in the world that the government doesn't grab for itself. It just goes to show how outdated mandated systems of control are.
Somewhere at home, I have a copy of a Blue Peter Annual that was sent over from British relatives. One of the articles in it goes on about the wedding of Princess Anne to Capt. Mark Phillips, in 1973.
Never seen the series, but from the book, it looked like it might have been a good watch. I take it it's still on!
Yup, still on. Not watched it in a looong time. British TV tends to change at the speed Soviet computer technology did. Used to be a lot about making things from old yoghurt pots, pasta and glue. I think these days its mostly about enviromentalism and boy-bands.
BTW, this particular work is not the "Doomsday" book, it's the "Domesday Book," a comprehensive survey and ledger of the lands and holdings of King William in the 11th century.)
Not as far as I know. William I was an extremely brutal invader, and after the Sack of Yorkshire in the early 1080s (1082?) his Doomsday book assed the value of Yorkshire to be only 5 shillings - 4 ounces of silver in other words. The invasion of England was ultimately a business venture for the feudal Normansand he needed to know just how much money he could extract from his new estate, as subdivided by his barons etc. Doomsday it was. Now the entire Anglo-Saxon land ownship sysytem was overthrown, people were precisely put into catagories such as villain (i.e. land-owning peasent), tenent (renting land), serf (land-tied part-slave, part renter), and slave. The who period was a bloody disaster for the English, basically to feed the Norman-French war machine. That was why the book was called the Doomsday book as I understood it. I think Domesday is just an archaic spelling meaning the same thing.
It seems a shame though. The way the thing was billed you would have thought it was the best thing ever: my whole school took part, they were preparing for it for months, and the the end of it they had recreated the whole of the Norman Doomsday book with modern data, and put it onto the the most modern and "useful" media of the time. Even a few years ago I had friends pirating Resoviour Dogs of imported Dutch Laserdisc versions. And now nothing.
I was about 10 at the time, and myself and about 3 schoolfriends survayed places like Westmarsh in Grimsby, Lincolnshire. It was quite goog really. I think it was organsied by the childrens TV programme "Blue Peter" or something. Obviously a waste of time retrospect, but still fun for a ten year old.
Where do you get that? It can be perfectly legal and still hypoctritical.
Sorry, I probably didn't make myself clear enough. The point is that the US didn't agree to the treaty - so it isn't bound by it. It is a tenet of international law that countries can make or break treaties as they like. If a bunch of other countries agree a treaty between themselves it could be good or bad, but as the US isn't a part of it it isn't hypocritical to ignore what the treaty says.
So it seems that the convention exists, but the US is flatly rejecting accepting it. But I imagine that came as no shock to anyone, as it's not benefitting the US in any way whatsoever
Right? Isn't the fact that something is not benefiting you at all normally a good reason not to do it? The US is a sovereign country, so it doesn't have to agree to any treath if it doesn't want to. There is nothing hypocritical about it: it is international law.
I predict that is the American government basically bankrupted or supertaxed PC technology-producers (e.g. PC makers etc.) by coercing them to take back worthless hardware they had legally sold to consumers, then countries where this is not requred, like Taiwan, China, Indea and so on) would leap ahead in the technology race. And falling behind in the technology race would definetely be a treat to loong-run American superpower status, and ultimately possibly be a security risk. That is unintended consequences for you - they tend to come round and bite co-ercive people back
Re:Britian would make itself more useless to world
on
Every Road a Toll Road
·
· Score: 0
Well, you would have thought a few people over her (in England, that is) would think so. But they all just go along with what ever the latest government indignity or spy-job is. This proposal is so tranparently about people-tracking but people here would probably go along with it anyway. Fortunatly with telco/ISP skills I should be able to move anywhere else in the world in a few years time.
This is about state control. I live in England and I can assure you the only reason this is being "considered" is to test the public reaction to having a government spy-box in your car so that you every move can be compiled into a government database. We already have CCTV cameras everywhere, speed cameras on over half the main (trunk?) roads [using facial recognition now on the digitalmodels]. The atmosphere here feel more and more oppressive, at the same time as violent crime is going through the roof. You honestly have extremely frightening violent criminals wandering around the streets basically looking for someone to rob, but as a professional person with a career I can't defend myself because if I do I will be the one who is arrested and I'll lose everything. For example, last week 3 burglers broke into a families house, and put a knife to the mothers neck. Her husband wretled the knife off them, in the process fatally wounding the burgler. This man was arrrested nad has been charged with murder. This kind of thing is just getting out of hand and it *is* the government that is causing it and seems happy to go along with it. It is increasingly scary.
Why is that a troll? Far too many people are running about with downward moderation powers. In this case the parent is a perfectly normal question - so it gets modded to troll! Meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a point. Having airwaves owned by governments is a Bad Thing. Having them regulated by government agencies is also a bad thing, as that is just like the ownership - if you can regualte something you by implication have ownership of it. How about letting nature take its course and waiting for a non-government ownership model to arise? Spontanious order and all that?
options MAXDSIZ="(1024*1024*1024)"
options MAXSSIZ="(256*1024*1024)"
onto the end of my kernel config - so the java stuff all worked this time. Now I'm just waiting for the kernel and then hopefully it should be straight through (probably until morning :-))
So far this is going better than Gnome. Now that was painful...
Yes, its very news worthy. Every cracker and script-kiddie out there is putting gopher links into the sites as we speak. Just because people don't use gopher any more doesn't mean you can't put a link into a webpage.
Yeah, 1Mb cable modem :-)
Downloading the stuff from Sun is a real pain. Remind me to never ever buy stuff from Sun. Their website has to be the most anti-customer/user in the world. IBM's is so much better.
Got to:t .c : 8: ../../../src/solaris/native/sun/awt/awt_p.h:289 : a wt '
/usr/ports/java/jdk13.
/usr/ports/editors/openoffice.
In file included from
../../../src/solaris/native/sun/awt/awt_AWTEven
syntax error before int' in declaration of
/usr/ports/java/jdk13/work/j2sdk1.3.1/make/sun/
gmake[2]: *** [optimized] Error 2
gmake[2]: Leaving directory
/usr/ports/java/jdk13/work/j2sdk1.3.1/make/sun'
gmake: *** [all] Error 1
*** Error code 2
Stop in
*** Error code 1
Stop in
#
# make install clean
Yay!
The parent post is one of the most intelligent things said yet. The urge of groups of humans to regulate and control always comes with artificial scarcity and attempts to overthrow naturally evolved systems. The original redistributers were probably people tending goats in a clearing in a forest. When the grass was used up the village elders would decide to regulate how many goats each family could own, killing the goat of families over quota. When all along there was forest just waiting to be cleared, and property with fences would have solved all their problems. One thing you can guraantee is that not a single working goatheard or forrester would have been party to the decision to restrict. Just as with DNS today, where congresmen and CEOs think to rule on matters they know nothing about, creating scarcity in abundance, and hence more power for themselves.
I'm with you. I've run DNS servers before, I'm ready to go for it and f*** and all these government types who think they can take over DNS. I'm on a static IP address with 256Kb up so I could afford to run a small DNS service on it. And this time round no .gov,.mil, .gov.uk, (spit) .police.uk or anything like that. Thay can have .org's and be grateful for it.
They see things like .com, .au, .uk and .za and they think becuase it is used in marketing slogans it can be made into something that that belongs to them them - with the site DNS-admin paying them $200 a time he make a change in his own zone files.
But it doesn't have to be like that: there is no reason why anyone should use the ICANN root.
What we need to do is set up independent roots and tld that are out of these people's graspming reach. The prospect of .za disappearing off DNS if the South African government can't accept that it is just not theirs to steal would be a start. But it is more important to start using competing roots now, so their is a diversity of choice for when the government/ICANN rentseekers come to take over your DNS server and pass laws about who you can resolve off. Then they'll have to back off..
DNS is a distrubuted database lookup service. It doesn't belong to any country and doesn't have any status other than being more conveniant than aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd numbers. Anyone can, and people sometimes do, set a DNS root or a TLD.
It required the co-operation of other DNS administrators around the world (and not just in a titchy little backwater like South Africa) for the information about what hostname equals what number to be meaningful. It is not some farm on the veld that can be seized by a bunch of rent-seeking criminals - .za is not propertery.
Just because it looks like it could be grabbed does not actually mean it can be, not least because you have people like me in other countries who just won't accept that kind of abusive behavior - and without our support it is useless to you.
Start doing things properly of be cut off: a lesson for the whole of Southern Africa IMO.
I don't see anyone doing this with 802.11b. With modern multipoint transmission technologies there is no advantage at all in deliberately blocking other people's signals. Come on, half of you all must be using 802.11b anyway, and all you can all go on about is pornographers interupting childrens tv to advertise sex-toys. It doesn't make any sense and it doesn't happen in the real world.
The trouble is is that you are talking about the technology of 60 to 70 years ago. The point the article makes is that in the modern world it is just an anachronism, rather like a lot of what the government does. Technology has moved on and there isn't a call for the solutions of 70 years ago - solution that in all fairness were enforced by governments ultimately grabbing hold of the medium for propaganda in the run up to WWII. Merely because ham radio was ruined by "the tradgerdy of the commons" doesn't mean that all non-government wavebands have to be commons. In fact, can you think of a single common not held there by a government agaency anyway? Freeing the spectum from the FCC would not necessarliy give way to a commons, any more than property would revert to commons without the IRS. In fact life would be a lot easier.
There are plenty of ways free agents can control unlimited broadcasting - just look at the Usenet Death Penalty. In the most recent case, the UK cable company Blueyonder was allowing unlimited news relays off its cable-modem customers. With the threat of the U.D.P. from other ISPs worldwide they voluntarily isolated their network from Usenet and started to clean up their act.
There is every reason to think that broadcasting would be the same. Merely broadcasting on someone elses band in a given area (with areas getting smaller with the wavelength) is merely inviting a blocking transmission from everyone else - so it would achive nothing and the rights of existing broadcasters would be upheld. Very soon people would respect wavebands as much as they do now.
I don't buy the big winge about cops and ambulances. Why can't they use a modern technology like voice over 802.11b or at least make some attempt to drag themselves out of the 1930s? Both the police and healthcare providers should have the same rights as other citizens, no more.
Similarly you talk about fighting a fire with nothing more than a fire extinguisher - why the hell wouldn't a commercial service exist like with everything else you need? Fire protection would become a branch of the insurance industry like it was in the past.
Your argument is inconsistant.
So I guess you didn't bother reading the article then?
It should never have happened. As pointed out above, government usurption of radio transmission is just another 20th Century fraud. There isn't anything *about* airwaves that means they could become the property of some official - after all, they have never actually stamped out "pirate" radio (note how they use the same terminolgy today for software). Left to free agents frequancy wavebands settle into agreed usage and custom leading to tradeable ownership, like everything else in the world that the government doesn't grab for itself. It just goes to show how outdated mandated systems of control are.
Never seen the series, but from the book, it looked like it might have been a good watch. I take it it's still on!
Yup, still on. Not watched it in a looong time. British TV tends to change at the speed Soviet computer technology did. Used to be a lot about making things from old yoghurt pots, pasta and glue. I think these days its mostly about enviromentalism and boy-bands.
Not as far as I know. William I was an extremely brutal invader, and after the Sack of Yorkshire in the early 1080s (1082?) his Doomsday book assed the value of Yorkshire to be only 5 shillings - 4 ounces of silver in other words. The invasion of England was ultimately a business venture for the feudal Normansand he needed to know just how much money he could extract from his new estate, as subdivided by his barons etc. Doomsday it was. Now the entire Anglo-Saxon land ownship sysytem was overthrown, people were precisely put into catagories such as villain (i.e. land-owning peasent), tenent (renting land), serf (land-tied part-slave, part renter), and slave. The who period was a bloody disaster for the English, basically to feed the Norman-French war machine. That was why the book was called the Doomsday book as I understood it. I think Domesday is just an archaic spelling meaning the same thing.
It seems a shame though. The way the thing was billed you would have thought it was the best thing ever: my whole school took part, they were preparing for it for months, and the the end of it they had recreated the whole of the Norman Doomsday book with modern data, and put it onto the the most modern and "useful" media of the time. Even a few years ago I had friends pirating Resoviour Dogs of imported Dutch Laserdisc versions. And now nothing.
I was about 10 at the time, and myself and about 3 schoolfriends survayed places like Westmarsh in Grimsby, Lincolnshire. It was quite goog really. I think it was organsied by the childrens TV programme "Blue Peter" or something. Obviously a waste of time retrospect, but still fun for a ten year old.
Sorry, I probably didn't make myself clear enough. The point is that the US didn't agree to the treaty - so it isn't bound by it. It is a tenet of international law that countries can make or break treaties as they like. If a bunch of other countries agree a treaty between themselves it could be good or bad, but as the US isn't a part of it it isn't hypocritical to ignore what the treaty says.
Right? Isn't the fact that something is not benefiting you at all normally a good reason not to do it? The US is a sovereign country, so it doesn't have to agree to any treath if it doesn't want to. There is nothing hypocritical about it: it is international law.
I predict that is the American government basically bankrupted or supertaxed PC technology-producers (e.g. PC makers etc.) by coercing them to take back worthless hardware they had legally sold to consumers, then countries where this is not requred, like Taiwan, China, Indea and so on) would leap ahead in the technology race. And falling behind in the technology race would definetely be a treat to loong-run American superpower status, and ultimately possibly be a security risk. That is unintended consequences for you - they tend to come round and bite co-ercive people back
Well, you would have thought a few people over her (in England, that is) would think so. But they all just go along with what ever the latest government indignity or spy-job is. This proposal is so tranparently about people-tracking but people here would probably go along with it anyway. Fortunatly with telco/ISP skills I should be able to move anywhere else in the world in a few years time.
This is about state control. I live in England and I can assure you the only reason this is being "considered" is to test the public reaction to having a government spy-box in your car so that you every move can be compiled into a government database. We already have CCTV cameras everywhere, speed cameras on over half the main (trunk?) roads [using facial recognition now on the digitalmodels]. The atmosphere here feel more and more oppressive, at the same time as violent crime is going through the roof. You honestly have extremely frightening violent criminals wandering around the streets basically looking for someone to rob, but as a professional person with a career I can't defend myself because if I do I will be the one who is arrested and I'll lose everything. For example, last week 3 burglers broke into a families house, and put a knife to the mothers neck. Her husband wretled the knife off them, in the process fatally wounding the burgler. This man was arrrested nad has been charged with murder. This kind of thing is just getting out of hand and it *is* the government that is causing it and seems happy to go along with it. It is increasingly scary.
Why is that a troll? Far too many people are running about with downward moderation powers. In this case the parent is a perfectly normal question - so it gets modded to troll! Meaningless.