You know, I'd been using my cellphone in airplaces for quite sometime now, my provider hasn't said anything about it...and I pay them $30/mo for the service! Now I'm gonna have to find a fscking vacuum to talk in? Man, the nearest one is like 15 miles from here...but I hear it's expensive to get to, and you need a pretty important patron...but I hear the reception sucks:). Fix that headline Cmdr Taco.
What about xDSL? We've got DSL service here in California for less than $50/mo and the get is a lot quicker than ISDN. Granted the push isn't great (13k/sec most times) but the get can be around 150k/sec. The other thing is that at least here (Central Valley, CA) there are multiple providers, including Pacific Bell and local ISPs...it's a reasonable option if you don't mind the asynchronous DSL.
Not true, precisely. We may be legally bound to follow the treaty, but we can opt out of the legal consequences (of which there is no way to enforce) of the treaty at any time, that's what makes the UN relatively worthless. There's no legal binding if there is no court of justice to uphold the law. I would LOVE to see a body here to solve these problems, but I don't think WIPO is it.
There's a difference between what Beethoven did (took PUBLIC DOMAIN music) and what Puff Daddy does. Folk music, what Ode to Joy is based upon, is classified by ethnomusicologists through 6 methods. One of which is that the authorship is unknown. If the authorship is unknown there's no one to credit. In the case of Puff Daddy, he has to give credit to the people he "borrows" from.
Also, In the international community, if I've got more power than you do (and I'm willing to exercise it) I can invalidate your contract to buy my car if I feel like it on any grounds I choose to cite (especially the really neat coffee grounds clause) and there ain't a DAMN thing you could do about it. The international system has no real court of law, therefore, you're up a creek without a paddle.
The treaty in this case is only as binding as the country WANTS it to be. The US can walk out of the UN Charter whenever they feel like it, that's part of what makes the UN such a joke in the international community. We don't HAVE to be there, instead we CHOOSE to. We've also CHOSEN not to pay our UN Dues for the past umpty-squat years. Some treaties are binding, some are voluntary, the UN Charter is NOT binding.
But the UN Charter says precisely DICK about the web. On top of that, it's a voluntary treaty and not a binding one, and if the Charter's non-binding, then so is the WIPO.
You said: "Hey, what gives, this 1 GHz Crusoe notebook isn't any better than my P!!! 600 notebook. I've been cheated!" Chances are it runs for a lot longer on a battery than the P3.
Solvency also applies to the realm of Political Science. A country is solvent for their own policy, no one else is. The UN has no effective solvency for anyone's solvency through treaty, therefore the UN is not solvent on this issue (I debated once upon a time). SO lets get a body who WOULD be.
Fine, I'll admit the internet is a global thing, however, a global body without genuine solvency is not the place to start. The WIPO has some treaty protection, but most of it seems to be based on the UN, which is established as being a great idea with poor execution. No nation is required to act when the UN snaps its fingers, what makes you think them running out cybersquatters will be any different?
I'll agree that Eisner is more capable (he's a Denison University grad) however, M$ does have a lot to lose right now in terms of copyright. While it's true that they SHOULD give out their APIs, they can currently claim that those and the other parts of source code that they may end up revealing as part of an eventual settlement are IP and those would rapidly cross lines of demarcation such as the US-World Border.
Granted the RIAA has claims here, but they're not taking after this group yet. Mainly it's there for patent law, not for Napster. So download your illegal MP3s Sydney, it'll give you something more intelligent to do.
Sydney, you're far too paranoid about the RIAA and the MPAA. They're not the major backing behind this. I'll bet you kiam to kitty-cats that the major "backing" is the Microsoft people and Java based infringements.
Because the members of the UN are there voluntary AND can leave at any time, the regs don't HAVE to apply. Especially when countries like th U.S. haven't paid their dues in years. Granted we're moving away from an international society that's based on a different set of rules (the Cold War is OVER and with it went a lot of the legitimacy rules of international politics) that's based more on co-operation, but this is a domestic issue at the moment, and a conflict to be handled on a case-by-case basis that DOESN'T include the UN.
I realize that one of my statements is not predicated by the previous post...I said that there is no place for foreign gov'ts inside of domestic policy. What I meant to say is thus: There is no need for foreign intervention into problems that individual nations can solve themselves. There's no need for Germany to shove their decision on the people of the US when the NameServers are run by the US. Even if it includes the cybersquatters. Granted some problems cross that line, but THIS is not one of them.
The Charter says nothing about applying Internet regulation.
The teeth may be in the individual members, but there's a degree of reluctance on the part of member nations to become involved in the personal politics of the heavy duty players. Mostly because A) There's no precedent B) There's no place for foreign nations inside the policies of individual countries.
Sure the UN condemns parts of China's policy, but do members like France get involved on their individual decisions? Not a chance. Same should apply here.
This isn't as important as people would have you believe. The United Nations is a group of nations who show up to meetings and say things are "bad" but then have no jurisdiction to actually do anything. Sure you can create social pressure, but there's no real treaty requirement for nations to follow the edicts that the UN drops down on people. There's no solvency here which means their decision is worthless. I mean, hell, their Human Rights group think China is a disaster area, but they can't exercise sovereignty and fix the problem. The Internet is no different.
Mac OS *can* handle Multiple OSs. I've got DP4 on one partition, OS 9 on the other and I use the Darwin booter to swap the two seamlessly. If you teach it to recognize Unix/Linux/etc you can boot it everywhere.
Well, if this sort of tax were enacted in the US, I suppose it would go something like this: The tax is there to recoup the lost sales tax when people purchase things online. This valuable cash goes to repair our roads, keep the infrastructure okay and gets the schools working. Right now as things stand (no internet tax) the internet serves as a sales tax shield for the upper class (traditionally those spending $ on the web) and the average non-netted Joe spends the extra to not buy online. Basically a net-tax would benefit the states and return the consumers to equality...but I'm still against it:)
I think we've all missed a point. A Data Haven isn't about free-speech it's about secured data. It's a place to keep things that wouldn't want to see the light of day (preferably secured by HEAVY crypto) under normal circumstances, like ledgers and finance books. We're not hosting websites at the data haven, we're storing things there. That's the point. It's not a place to keep Natalie Portman jpgs or Metallica MP3s.
Quote. "So There I was, Naked, in a refrigerator, smoking a cigarette" belongs to Matt Bushmeyer unofficially. The rest is my own. Some people attribute it to a joke about three guys standing in line to get into heaven. However, it was one of those great non-sequiturs at a party four years ago, it was very memorable.
Slashdot Mirror
Metallica just asked them to enforce their own policy, it's not a big deal. Just switch to Gnutella and keep theiving, it's okay.
You know, I'd been using my cellphone in airplaces for quite sometime now, my provider hasn't said anything about it...and I pay them $30/mo for the service! Now I'm gonna have to find a fscking vacuum to talk in? Man, the nearest one is like 15 miles from here...but I hear it's expensive to get to, and you need a pretty important patron...but I hear the reception sucks :). Fix that headline Cmdr Taco.
What about xDSL? We've got DSL service here in California for less than $50/mo and the get is a lot quicker than ISDN. Granted the push isn't great (13k/sec most times) but the get can be around 150k/sec. The other thing is that at least here (Central Valley, CA) there are multiple providers, including Pacific Bell and local ISPs...it's a reasonable option if you don't mind the asynchronous DSL.
Not true, precisely. We may be legally bound to follow the treaty, but we can opt out of the legal consequences (of which there is no way to enforce) of the treaty at any time, that's what makes the UN relatively worthless. There's no legal binding if there is no court of justice to uphold the law. I would LOVE to see a body here to solve these problems, but I don't think WIPO is it.
There's a difference between what Beethoven did (took PUBLIC DOMAIN music) and what Puff Daddy does. Folk music, what Ode to Joy is based upon, is classified by ethnomusicologists through 6 methods. One of which is that the authorship is unknown. If the authorship is unknown there's no one to credit. In the case of Puff Daddy, he has to give credit to the people he "borrows" from.
You've slashdotted Geocities! BASTARD!
Also, In the international community, if I've got more power than you do (and I'm willing to exercise it) I can invalidate your contract to buy my car if I feel like it on any grounds I choose to cite (especially the really neat coffee grounds clause) and there ain't a DAMN thing you could do about it. The international system has no real court of law, therefore, you're up a creek without a paddle.
The treaty in this case is only as binding as the country WANTS it to be. The US can walk out of the UN Charter whenever they feel like it, that's part of what makes the UN such a joke in the international community. We don't HAVE to be there, instead we CHOOSE to. We've also CHOSEN not to pay our UN Dues for the past umpty-squat years. Some treaties are binding, some are voluntary, the UN Charter is NOT binding.
Man, I'd kill to play Leather Goddesses of Phobos on my Nokia! Where do I sign?
But the UN Charter says precisely DICK about the web. On top of that, it's a voluntary treaty and not a binding one, and if the Charter's non-binding, then so is the WIPO.
You said: "Hey, what gives, this 1 GHz Crusoe notebook isn't any better than my P!!! 600 notebook. I've been cheated!" Chances are it runs for a lot longer on a battery than the P3.
Solvency also applies to the realm of Political Science. A country is solvent for their own policy, no one else is. The UN has no effective solvency for anyone's solvency through treaty, therefore the UN is not solvent on this issue (I debated once upon a time). SO lets get a body who WOULD be.
Fine, I'll admit the internet is a global thing, however, a global body without genuine solvency is not the place to start. The WIPO has some treaty protection, but most of it seems to be based on the UN, which is established as being a great idea with poor execution. No nation is required to act when the UN snaps its fingers, what makes you think them running out cybersquatters will be any different?
.com and .org are based out of the InterNIC which is a US Body, aren't they?. If so, US laws apply, not UN regulations.
I'll agree that Eisner is more capable (he's a Denison University grad) however, M$ does have a lot to lose right now in terms of copyright. While it's true that they SHOULD give out their APIs, they can currently claim that those and the other parts of source code that they may end up revealing as part of an eventual settlement are IP and those would rapidly cross lines of demarcation such as the US-World Border.
Granted the RIAA has claims here, but they're not taking after this group yet. Mainly it's there for patent law, not for Napster. So download your illegal MP3s Sydney, it'll give you something more intelligent to do.
Sydney, you're far too paranoid about the RIAA and the MPAA. They're not the major backing behind this. I'll bet you kiam to kitty-cats that the major "backing" is the Microsoft people and Java based infringements.
Because the members of the UN are there voluntary AND can leave at any time, the regs don't HAVE to apply. Especially when countries like th U.S. haven't paid their dues in years. Granted we're moving away from an international society that's based on a different set of rules (the Cold War is OVER and with it went a lot of the legitimacy rules of international politics) that's based more on co-operation, but this is a domestic issue at the moment, and a conflict to be handled on a case-by-case basis that DOESN'T include the UN.
I realize that one of my statements is not predicated by the previous post...I said that there is no place for foreign gov'ts inside of domestic policy. What I meant to say is thus: There is no need for foreign intervention into problems that individual nations can solve themselves. There's no need for Germany to shove their decision on the people of the US when the NameServers are run by the US. Even if it includes the cybersquatters. Granted some problems cross that line, but THIS is not one of them.
The Charter says nothing about applying Internet regulation.
The teeth may be in the individual members, but there's a degree of reluctance on the part of member nations to become involved in the personal politics of the heavy duty players. Mostly because A) There's no precedent B) There's no place for foreign nations inside the policies of individual countries.
Sure the UN condemns parts of China's policy, but do members like France get involved on their individual decisions? Not a chance. Same should apply here.
This isn't as important as people would have you believe. The United Nations is a group of nations who show up to meetings and say things are "bad" but then have no jurisdiction to actually do anything. Sure you can create social pressure, but there's no real treaty requirement for nations to follow the edicts that the UN drops down on people. There's no solvency here which means their decision is worthless. I mean, hell, their Human Rights group think China is a disaster area, but they can't exercise sovereignty and fix the problem. The Internet is no different.
Mac OS *can* handle Multiple OSs. I've got DP4 on one partition, OS 9 on the other and I use the Darwin booter to swap the two seamlessly. If you teach it to recognize Unix/Linux/etc you can boot it everywhere.
Well, if this sort of tax were enacted in the US, I suppose it would go something like this: The tax is there to recoup the lost sales tax when people purchase things online. This valuable cash goes to repair our roads, keep the infrastructure okay and gets the schools working. Right now as things stand (no internet tax) the internet serves as a sales tax shield for the upper class (traditionally those spending $ on the web) and the average non-netted Joe spends the extra to not buy online. Basically a net-tax would benefit the states and return the consumers to equality...but I'm still against it :)
I think we've all missed a point. A Data Haven isn't about free-speech it's about secured data. It's a place to keep things that wouldn't want to see the light of day (preferably secured by HEAVY crypto) under normal circumstances, like ledgers and finance books. We're not hosting websites at the data haven, we're storing things there. That's the point. It's not a place to keep Natalie Portman jpgs or Metallica MP3s.
Well, geez, they could just use Webvan to get groceries :) I know, I know, flamebait...my bad...
Quote. "So There I was, Naked, in a refrigerator, smoking a cigarette" belongs to Matt Bushmeyer unofficially. The rest is my own. Some people attribute it to a joke about three guys standing in line to get into heaven. However, it was one of those great non-sequiturs at a party four years ago, it was very memorable.