Bullshit right back at you. I didn't say the UN was dominated by these countries. I said the primary nations involved in pushing for international control of the internet are middle eastern theocracies and China. Read the news stories. It is quite transparent that these governments consider the Internet to be one of their greatest enemies and want control of it by any means possible.
Here are quotes from an articles published mostly in British papers last year:
"A number of countries represented including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused."
"Then there is human rights. China has attracted criticism for filtering content from the net within its borders. Tunisia - host of the World Summit - has also come under attack for silencing online voices. Mueller doesn't see a governmental overseeing council having any impact: "What human rights groups want is for someone to be able to bring some kind of enforceable claim to stop them violating people's rights. But how's that going to happen? I can't see that a council is going to be able to improve the human rights situation."
"This discontent finally boiled over at the UN's World Summit on the Information Society, the first phase of which was held in Geneva in December 2003 (the second phase is set for November in Tunis). Brazil and South Africa have criticized the current arrangement, and China has called for the creation of a new international treaty organization. France wants an intergovernmental approach, but one fundamentally based on democratic values.{See Footnote 1} Cuba and Syria have taken advantage of the controversy to poke a finger in Washington's eye, and even Zimbabwe's tyrant, Robert Mugabe, has weighed in, calling the existing system of Internet governance a form of neocolonialism."
And here are some quotes from a Chinese official in the ITU:
"The ITU, a United Nations agency, would like to change that. "The whole world is looking for a better solution for Internet governance, unwilling to maintain the current situation," Houlin Zhao, director of the ITU's Telecommunication Standardization Bureau, said last year. Zhao, a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, has been in his current job since 1999."
I don't have any particular problem with international governance of the Internet, SO LONG AS IT IS BASED ON TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS AND ABSOLUTE FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION.
Will that happen in the current climate? I DON'T THINK SO.
The ITU as a sterling example of UN effectiveness doesn't impress me. It was founded about 50 years before the UN existed, and joined the UN during of the founding of that body. Any particular effectiveness of that organization has nothing to do with the UN, but rather the long history of the organizations carrying out their mission well before the UN came into existence.
Giving the UN credit for the ITU is like giving Al Gore credit for inventing the internet.
Most people would have thought that a Halo movie would suck donkey dick, and cancelled any such waste of money. Glad to see Peter has come around to that conclusion.
Considering that it is the middle eastern and Chinese governments that are pushing hardest for this I would say that this is exactly opposite to what will actually occur.
I don't know where this insane notion came from that the U.S. is capable of governing the Internet any better than the world community at large. In case you haven't been watching the news, we can barely govern ourselves right now.
Sad to say, but look at the alternatives. Having the US run it might not be that bad an idea. The UN? Corruption-wracked, financially bankrupt, incapable of acting when it is most needed. Some other international body? Who, exactly?
Interesting.. of your list I'd cross off Singapore (freedom of speech) and Ireland (censorship, abortion, birth control) and Iceland, Estonia (too cold). So that leaves GB and Australia.
Not sure that either are really much different from the US.
I would go to nations that are more economically free than the United States, that also have comparable levels of personal freedom. These nations are Singapore, Ireland, Estonia, Australia, and possibly Denmark.
What measure are you using to make these comparisons? I think the best measure of economic freedom is tax as a percentage of GDP, and that is pretty low in the US compared to most countries.
This makes me think of Kid-Proof caps. Only the kids will be able to open the cap to get into the kernel. Users who want to install legit stuff, forget it.
I was hoping for a more immediate process. At least the driving while cell-phoning statistics give me hope that Darwin's work will be somewhat effective during my lifetime. The other hope (microwave radiation causing brain cancer) seems to be pretty iffy based on current research.
Meanwhile work on an EMP weapon that causes operating cell phones to explode continues apace.
Bwahahahahaha from deep inside the volcano lab is heard.....
I don't see anything in the MoaD that would be prior art for e-commerce. I'd be much more inclined to cite simple mail order with an order taker sitting at a terminal or France's (what was that called?) as prior art.
Chemistry has probably changed more than physics. At its root chemistry is all applied quantum mechanics and applied physics; the applied branches of chemistry include biochemistry which is probably the most rapidly developing science of all.
Java 5/6 (not J2EE 5) has some very important enhancements to its concurrency support. Under the right circumstances and if you know what you are doing they can accelerate your application by 50% or more. There are also some nice debugging tool improvements that especially improve profiler performance over Java 1.4.
Hydrogen - air will burn over a very wide range of ratios - 4% H to I think 74% H in air. The result is that it would be very unlikely that the hydrogen could disperse rapidy enough to not be involved in the fire.
Just exactly who decides what is toxic, and how much is meaningful anyway? For example, car batteries dump way more lead into the ecosystem than lead from electrical solder, and the alternatives to lead solder that are in use in Europe are shown to have reliability problems. If your PC has a shorter life due to use on non-lead solder do you really reduce the environmental impact?
Ditto mercury - for example mercury is used in compact flourescent lamps - but using these lamps actually leads to less mercury in the environment because the energy saved reduces coal buring which is the primary source of mercury in the environment. And LEDs are far less efficient than flourescent so their use doesn't reduce electrical consumption as much.
And what about the environmental impact of waste from recycling? It may turn out this is more harmful than the relatively stable computer in the leandfill.
I spent some time studying paper recycling and paper life cycles, and it sure looked to me like for most types of paper the overall impact of just throwing it away was less than trying to recycle paper. Collection costs, transportation, reprocessing (and waste from reprocessing/chemical use in reprocessing) etc. didn't present a very pretty picture.
In some circles it is referred to as the "Big Blue Room". However it is full of hazards - the temeprature is very poorly regulated, reaching hazardous extremes, and there is a large fusion reactor in the "sky" part of the room. The fusion reactor provides light sometimes, but it is periodic and unreliable and it is often obscured by other Room features such as "clouds" and "night". Night is quite scary since without the illumination of the reactor it is very hard to see. The reactor sometimes emits enough UV radiation to actually burn unprotected human skin, or cause blindness if you stare directly at it.
It is best not to go there; viewing of simulations and photographs is the best way to experience this.
Actually there is no light, only absence of dark, making this truly a scam. Not only are you buying something that doesn't exist (light) but you are paying taxes on it, and in fact the actual amoutn of energy that the bits require is far less than the light that is provided.
The Dark Sucker Theory
For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers. The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove that dark has mass and is heavier than light.
First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in. There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in this room.
So with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot on a full Dark Sucker.
A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range.
There are also portable Dark Suckers. In these, the bulbs can't handle all the dark by themselves and must be aided by a Dark Storage Unit. When the Dark Storage Unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again.
Dark has mass. When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from the mass generates heat. Thus, it is not wise to touch an operating Dark Sucker. Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel into a solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a great amount of heat and therefore it's not wise to touch an operating candle.
Also, dark is heavier than light. If you were to swim just below the surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light. If you were to slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats at the top. The is why it is called light.
Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly opened the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet. But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.
Next time you see an electric bulb, remember that it is a Dark Sucker.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit right back at you. I didn't say the UN was dominated by these countries. I said the primary nations involved in pushing for international control of the internet are middle eastern theocracies and China. Read the news stories. It is quite transparent that these governments consider the Internet to be one of their greatest enemies and want control of it by any means possible.
Here are quotes from an articles published mostly in British papers last year:
"A number of countries represented including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused."
"Then there is human rights. China has attracted criticism for filtering content from the net within its borders. Tunisia - host of the World Summit - has also come under attack for silencing online voices. Mueller doesn't see a governmental overseeing council having any impact: "What human rights groups want is for someone to be able to bring some kind of enforceable claim to stop them violating people's rights. But how's that going to happen? I can't see that a council is going to be able to improve the human rights situation."
"This discontent finally boiled over at the UN's World Summit on the Information Society, the first phase of which was held in Geneva in December 2003 (the second phase is set for November in Tunis). Brazil and South Africa have criticized the current arrangement, and China has called for the creation of a new international treaty organization. France wants an intergovernmental approach, but one fundamentally based on democratic values.{See Footnote 1} Cuba and Syria have taken advantage of the controversy to poke a finger in Washington's eye, and even Zimbabwe's tyrant, Robert Mugabe, has weighed in, calling the existing system of Internet governance a form of neocolonialism."
And here are some quotes from a Chinese official in the ITU:
"The ITU, a United Nations agency, would like to change that. "The whole world is looking for a better solution for Internet governance, unwilling to maintain the current situation," Houlin Zhao, director of the ITU's Telecommunication Standardization Bureau, said last year. Zhao, a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, has been in his current job since 1999."
I don't have any particular problem with international governance of the Internet, SO LONG AS IT IS BASED ON TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS AND ABSOLUTE FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION.
Will that happen in the current climate? I DON'T THINK SO.
The ITU as a sterling example of UN effectiveness doesn't impress me. It was founded about 50 years before the UN existed, and joined the UN during of the founding of that body. Any particular effectiveness of that organization has nothing to do with the UN, but rather the long history of the organizations carrying out their mission well before the UN came into existence.
Giving the UN credit for the ITU is like giving Al Gore credit for inventing the internet.
Of course it isn't true, but then again all you need is for people to believe it and there you have it.
It's a pretty cool example of social engineering.
Most people would have thought that a Halo movie would suck donkey dick, and cancelled any such waste of money. Glad to see Peter has come around to that conclusion.
Now make the Hobbit dammit.
the freedom of speech will gain a lot.
Considering that it is the middle eastern and Chinese governments that are pushing hardest for this I would say that this is exactly opposite to what will actually occur.
I don't know where this insane notion came from that the U.S. is capable of governing the Internet any better than the world community at large. In case you haven't been watching the news, we can barely govern ourselves right now.
Sad to say, but look at the alternatives. Having the US run it might not be that bad an idea. The UN? Corruption-wracked, financially bankrupt, incapable of acting when it is most needed. Some other international body? Who, exactly?
Yes, we suck. But others suck MUCH worse.
I for one welcome our new metrosex overlords!
Oracle still wants JBoss so it needs to buy Red Hat??
Interesting.. of your list I'd cross off Singapore (freedom of speech) and Ireland (censorship, abortion, birth control) and Iceland, Estonia (too cold). So that leaves GB and Australia.
Not sure that either are really much different from the US.
I would go to nations that are more economically free than the United States, that also have comparable levels of personal freedom. These nations are Singapore, Ireland, Estonia, Australia, and possibly Denmark.
What measure are you using to make these comparisons? I think the best measure of economic freedom is tax as a percentage of GDP, and that is pretty low in the US compared to most countries.
Mathematics really doesn't help because sooner or later somebody finds an implementation flaw.
This makes me think of Kid-Proof caps. Only the kids will be able to open the cap to get into the kernel. Users who want to install legit stuff, forget it.
I was hoping for a more immediate process. At least the driving while cell-phoning statistics give me hope that Darwin's work will be somewhat effective during my lifetime. The other hope (microwave radiation causing brain cancer) seems to be pretty iffy based on current research.
Meanwhile work on an EMP weapon that causes operating cell phones to explode continues apace.
Bwahahahahaha from deep inside the volcano lab is heard.....
Maxwells laws haven't changed
True enough, but the way they are used has. Maxwell's formulation (which I learned 25 years ago) has been replaced by more modern frameworks.
I don't see anything in the MoaD that would be prior art for e-commerce. I'd be much more inclined to cite simple mail order with an order taker sitting at a terminal or France's (what was that called?) as prior art.
Chemistry has probably changed more than physics. At its root chemistry is all applied quantum mechanics and applied physics; the applied branches of chemistry include biochemistry which is probably the most rapidly developing science of all.
Java 5/6 (not J2EE 5) has some very important enhancements to its concurrency support. Under the right circumstances and if you know what you are doing they can accelerate your application by 50% or more. There are also some nice debugging tool improvements that especially improve profiler performance over Java 1.4.
I'm a Doctor, not a ... (well brick layer doesn't fit, how about nuclear physicist?, mineroligist?) anyway this would be a kickass kind of Horta.
Hydrogen - air will burn over a very wide range of ratios - 4% H to I think 74% H in air. The result is that it would be very unlikely that the hydrogen could disperse rapidy enough to not be involved in the fire.
It sounds to me like the managers don't have enough to do and are wasting their time micromanaging employees.
What do you expect, Power Point is EVIL
Just exactly who decides what is toxic, and how much is meaningful anyway? For example, car batteries dump way more lead into the ecosystem than lead from electrical solder, and the alternatives to lead solder that are in use in Europe are shown to have reliability problems. If your PC has a shorter life due to use on non-lead solder do you really reduce the environmental impact?
Ditto mercury - for example mercury is used in compact flourescent lamps - but using these lamps actually leads to less mercury in the environment because the energy saved reduces coal buring which is the primary source of mercury in the environment. And LEDs are far less efficient than flourescent so their use doesn't reduce electrical consumption as much.
And what about the environmental impact of waste from recycling? It may turn out this is more harmful than the relatively stable computer in the leandfill.
I spent some time studying paper recycling and paper life cycles, and it sure looked to me like for most types of paper the overall impact of just throwing it away was less than trying to recycle paper. Collection costs, transportation, reprocessing (and waste from reprocessing/chemical use in reprocessing) etc. didn't present a very pretty picture.
DVD sales are NOT declining - they are grew 13% over the last year. What is declining is the growth rate, presumably due to market saturation.
In some circles it is referred to as the "Big Blue Room". However it is full of hazards - the temeprature is very poorly regulated, reaching hazardous extremes, and there is a large fusion reactor in the "sky" part of the room. The fusion reactor provides light sometimes, but it is periodic and unreliable and it is often obscured by other Room features such as "clouds" and "night". Night is quite scary since without the illumination of the reactor it is very hard to see. The reactor sometimes emits enough UV radiation to actually burn unprotected human skin, or cause blindness if you stare directly at it.
It is best not to go there; viewing of simulations and photographs is the best way to experience this.
Actually there is no light, only absence of dark, making this truly a scam. Not only are you buying something that doesn't exist (light) but you are paying taxes on it, and in fact the actual amoutn of energy that the bits require is far less than the light that is provided.
The Dark Sucker Theory
For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers. The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove that dark has mass and is heavier than light.
First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in. There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in this room.
So with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot on a full Dark Sucker.
A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range.
There are also portable Dark Suckers. In these, the bulbs can't handle all the dark by themselves and must be aided by a Dark Storage Unit. When the Dark Storage Unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again.
Dark has mass. When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from the mass generates heat. Thus, it is not wise to touch an operating Dark Sucker. Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel into a solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a great amount of heat and therefore it's not wise to touch an operating candle.
Also, dark is heavier than light. If you were to swim just below the surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light. If you were to slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats at the top. The is why it is called light.
Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly opened the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet. But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.
Next time you see an electric bulb, remember that it is a Dark Sucker.
Also see the following references:
http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw/darksucker.html