These African ISPs, or more likely the government ministers the put in their pocket (let's not forget folks, big business in Africa works the same as anywhere else), are going to go to the EU, the UN, Congress, the GCC, and whoever else will hear them bitch, and plead the case that they need to be able to split Internet costs 50/50 with the telcos in order to grow.
The telco's will then be forced by their respective governments and regulating bodies to do so, at which point the telco's will decide that the profit, if any, is not worth it, and they'll drop the lines to Africa like hot potatos. And all of Africa will be staring at each other once again, only this time through their own T-1 lines.
Try thinking a few steps down the road folks. If these people are going to be competitive, they need to compete.
Of course, I'm sure the USA at some point (along with the EU), is then going to be cajoled into sending billions of dollars each year to provide free porn, spam, and other such Internet perks to starving 5 year olds in namibia who I'm sure would rather have a bowl of rice than a box of computer mice.
And you don't possibly suppose it's because the Internet's primary structure hubs around the US, does it?
Lets revamp history folks, the Internet was invented by the US, pioneered and accelerated by the US, and therefore is dominated by the US. With the exception of Europe, which has it's own competitive and impressively advanced telecommunications infrastructure, the rest of the worlds share of the Internet is primarily organized around accessing the US and European backbones which comprise the vast majority of the Internet's infrasctructure.
When Australia - and Africa, Malaysia, the Middle East, and Asia start launching their own billion dollar terabit satellites, laying their own massive fiber optic highways, and improving their telco infrastructure to support high bandwidths, then you can expect the US and European companies to enter into more aggressively competitive agreements for network access.
And that is, folks, what it's all about. Network access. The fiber, copper, satellite, and radio hardware costs money.
YES, you moron, I PAY FOR AN E-MAIL WHICH HAS BEEN SENT TO ME! You think this shit is free? I pay for the DSL line my computer uses to connect to the ISP I pay for where the server with my e-mail is housed that I pay to access.
You're whiney attitude is what offends. "Technologically Priveleged"? Remember that privelege is not always arbitrarily granted, and at least in my case I EARNED that privelege.
In this case, these people are PAYING for the ability to access information. Unlike a telephone call, which goes both ways, an Internet session involves FAR less data being sent out than what is coming in. So it makes perfect sense to NOT charge at a 1:1 ratio.
Perhaps the more open-minded/. readers might reflect on the fact that the industrialization of England and America would not have been possible without "Black ivory" (slaves) from Africa who for centuries provided the basic source of wealth of the plantation econonmy which in turn subsidized the industrial revolution?
Perhaps you should crack open a book and learn something of history. American industrialization was done on the backs of the Irish, then the Italians and Poles (all honkeys, the lot of 'em). The south's plantation economy primarily traded via export. Do you honestly think our civil war would have happenned otherwise?
Of course, you're all to happy to throw racism around in order to polarize the argument, but the fact is you're more racist if you think that the people of Africa are so weak that they can't rebuild after something that happenned hundreds of years ago. Perhaps if you weren't stuck in your own little world, shifting blame for the worlds "inequities" to the groups you feel comfortable demonizing, you would realize that Africa is a land of great potential, and is also a land where great potential has already been realized. There are cities in Africa which rival those of Europe in terms of culture and standard of living.
So let me understand this; ISP's want to be exempt from the regulation that the telephone industry suffers, but expect to reap the same benefits as the telephone industry were it exists?
And the Brits think this is a fleecing?
C'mon people, lets get real. There are already massive private sector and UN programs that bring Internet connectivity to 3rd world countries. What you have here is another example of big businesses trying to get welfare for themselves.
Emotions aside, the Constitution was written as a living document, meant to evolve to take on the changing demands of an evolving society. BUT, those first ten amendments were written to be unquestionable. They form the foundations by which our government operates with respect to it's subordinate governments (state, county, local) and its citizens. It very clearly defines both the powers and limitations of what the federal government can do. Looking at this document in a historical context is useful for understanding why they said these things, but looking at it in a modern context is required of us.
Just like the Mujahadeen, using heavy infantry armed with antiquated rifles and improvised weaponry using guerilla tactics did'nt kick the soviets out of Afghanistan?
No military in the history of man has been able to completely conquer a people not willing to be conquered.
If you honestly think that buying drugs is "harmless", you really need to take a step back. The illegal drug trade is operated by and profits post-marxist leninst rebel groups who have become nothing more than petty thugs that terrorize their local populations.
Then, you've got to consider that drug dealers USUALLY commit crimes to protect their turf, and drug users sometimes commit crimes to support their habit, and even more people get hurt.
So maybe if we legalize it, some of this will go away, but you can't sit there say with a straight face that the crackhead down the street isn't hurting more than just himself. I don't think you're that dumb.
And why not? No level of technologically advanced weaponry can defeat the will of a people fighting for their right of self determination. I would think the Viet-Namese, Mujahadeen, Somali Militia, and so on would have made that point clear by now.
Yes, it's different but the difference has nothing to do with the type of weapon or the compulsary impressement of citizens into the military (something that is also a reality in Israel). Swiss neutrality (which is a nice front, but in reality the Swiss economically support those they cannot militarily or politically support, so spare me the rhetoric) doesn't have a bearing either. The fact that every swiss male is taught respect for and proper handling of firearms is the at the root of the lack of a gun problem in that country.
Secondly, what is this hatred of Europe thing that seems to be in vogue right now?
It is the American response to the rough moral equivalent of US bashing that goes on persistantly and constantly in Europe. Ironically, Europe likes to talk about American arrogance, but fails to recognize it's own arrogance.
As to the rest of your comments, I would ask that you spend a little less time whittle away at the irrelevant points that I did not make, and focus on the primary issue: The reason for the lower per capita incidence of firearm violence in Switzerland is because of the education and attitudes towards firearms.
That's great, until you run into the next criminal that holds a gun of his own. Or do you think criminals do not wisen up to that?
How about, 'I don't give a shit if he has a gun or not'. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic. To think that a criminal has a moral standard that he/she applies to carrying a gun is as ludicrous as any other view you've expressed thus far.
I hope I will never be within shooting range from you, because as much as you trust your judgement, I do not.
That's fine by me, just know that you're perfectly safe in my "shooting range" (which is rougly 5,000 feet since I also own a rifle) so long as you are not in the act of committing a crime against myself, another person, or my property.
Quite honestly, it's the stupidity of the people who leave guns, water, and fire sitting out in the open where kids can get to it that are the problem. When I was a kid, my parents kept the fire locked up in the stove, water locked up in the faucet, and the guns locked up in the top shelf of the closet.
I mean, it took forever to cut that damn lock off the gun, even after I managed to climb up and get it. I was pissed when I could'nt find the bullets...
To purchase a handgun, depending on the state, you have to either procure a permit (and wait 5 days for the permit to process, which is also a cooling off period), or submit to an instant background check. For both handguns and longguns, you have to fill out BATF form 4473, which basically asks you if you're a nut, child/wife beater, etc. Lying on the form is easy to do, and it's also purjury.
In some places, you cannot carry a firearm in public. Most places, you can carry it concealed with a permit. A few places you do not require a permit to carry in the open (but concealed still requires a permit). In almost every case, discharging the weapon in city or town limits is a crime, even if you are defending yourself or stopping a crime (in which case the court often dismisses the discharge under the "Doctrine of Lesser Harms", or "Doctrine of the Right of Self Defense").
To purchase a given quantity of guns in a year, you need to have a Federal Firearms License, which requires strict background checks, and you must maintain a log of all your guns and when they leave your posession.
In any of the above cases, fully automatic and silenced firearms require that you register the weapon and pay a $200 yearly tax (why would anyone want a silenced weapon? Well, it's a lot more fun to shoot targets when you don't have to worry about pissing off or waking the neighbors).
In all cases, the right of a US citizen to keep and bear arms (and by extension, to purchase) is protected and unimpeachable unless that person is convicted of a felony, kicked out the military dishonorably, or declared a nut by a judge. Unfortunately, the same people who vehemently defend the first amendment are noticeably silent about the second. As evidenced by this, there is currently a condition (it's not even a law, but it is enforced as such) where if you have had a restraining order placed against you, you cannot have a firearm. What that means is, your constitutional right can be stripped from you without due process, simply because someone else asks that you stay away from them.
Michael Kinsley, former editor of Slate and unabashed liberal, once said that "if liberals regarded the second amendment as they did the first, gun ownership would be mandatory".
Go next door to Switzerland bubba. 1 in 3 people there own a firearm (500,000 pistols and 600,000 semiautomatic rifles). Yet, the rate of violent crime in which guns are involved in that country of 6 million is so low, they don't even keep statistics.
So, are we to conclude that merely the existance of a gun will lead to a shooting death? Or, would it not be more reasonable to assume that the attitudes a soceity has towards guns is at fault. Then, given the basic and fundamental fact that the government cannot, never has been, and never will be able to regulate a populations attitude, what sense does it make to legislate against guns?
That simple immutable fact, my friend, is why you are considered a typical eurotrash fucknut.
I carry a gun..45 caliber Ruger P-97 DC, 8 round clip plus I keep one in the chamber. I also keep an extra clip handy. Here in Arizona, we have open carry rights, so I occasionally wear it on my hip holster (like when I'm biking or hiking). I also have my concealed carry permit, and when I go out I keep it tucked away under a jacket. I prefer it concealed cause I don't have to put up with mindfucked blank stares and dumfuck questions from gun-paranoid idiots.
To date:
I haven't shot anyone
Nobody has been shot by my gun
I've only pointed my gun at two people, both of whom where about to commit a crime against my person or property (and both of those times were actually in Texas, where you can only carry concealed)
Only five people have ever known I was even carrying (the afore mentioned would-be criminals, two cops, as it is your duty to inform an officer of the law, and one girl who hugged me and asked "what the fuck is under your shirt").
My gun has been completely out of the reach of children, drunks, manic depressives, schizophrenics, and generally anyone not properly trained in handling a firearm.
Yes, more children die from drowning or burns than die from guns, but nelly little faggots like you would rather attack the inanimate object involved in a shooting accident than the more culpable agent - the idiot so called adults who don't excercise proper supervision and safety in the area of their children.
But then, just as we should ban all guns, lets also ban DeCSS. Makes sense both ways right?
There are literally hundreds of such cases. If you ever listened to Art Bell (late night radio kook, fun show), you'd know about his book "The Coming Global Superstorm" (coauthored with Whitley Streiber). Throughout sections of the book, they support the possibility of catastrophic climate changes affecting civilization by pointing to evidence of past cultures many of which were thought to be very advanced industrially.
When I lived in North Carolina, if you slid anything into a car, touched a door handle, or even lifted a windsheild wiper blade, it could be considered grand theft auto. Normally, you had to have photo/video evidence showing the act, but it was prosecutable. Most of the time they dropped the charge to attempted vandelism though.
Did Jon Katz Write This Crap?
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This article is a great sound and fury which signifies nothing. People have been commenting upon the video-game wars since '91. The obvious advantage of satellite intel was figured out with the Chronos missions of the 50's, and is the reason we've got a half dozen hubble space telescopes pointing down at us.
If you're going to write a report on modern military technology deployment, you might want to do a better job of explaining the variated threat we face today from both traditional military-industrial threats like China, to fluidic asymetric threats like rogue states which have the conventional ability to cause great damage, but not defeat, and support terrorist insurgents which can cause defeat without great damage.
Whatever happenned to the electromagnetic drives the navy was working on? seems to me that using magnetic fields to slither through water is preferrable to beating your way around with fins, propellers, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no it isn't.
And what moron rated the parent "Insightful" instead of "Troll"?
These African ISPs, or more likely the government ministers the put in their pocket (let's not forget folks, big business in Africa works the same as anywhere else), are going to go to the EU, the UN, Congress, the GCC, and whoever else will hear them bitch, and plead the case that they need to be able to split Internet costs 50/50 with the telcos in order to grow.
The telco's will then be forced by their respective governments and regulating bodies to do so, at which point the telco's will decide that the profit, if any, is not worth it, and they'll drop the lines to Africa like hot potatos. And all of Africa will be staring at each other once again, only this time through their own T-1 lines.
Try thinking a few steps down the road folks. If these people are going to be competitive, they need to compete.
Of course, I'm sure the USA at some point (along with the EU), is then going to be cajoled into sending billions of dollars each year to provide free porn, spam, and other such Internet perks to starving 5 year olds in namibia who I'm sure would rather have a bowl of rice than a box of computer mice.
What debt? What theft? Can you possibly do us all a favor, spare us the leftist drivel, and actually cite examples?
I did'nt think so. It's the same tired line born of ignorance of history.
And you don't possibly suppose it's because the Internet's primary structure hubs around the US, does it?
Lets revamp history folks, the Internet was invented by the US, pioneered and accelerated by the US, and therefore is dominated by the US. With the exception of Europe, which has it's own competitive and impressively advanced telecommunications infrastructure, the rest of the worlds share of the Internet is primarily organized around accessing the US and European backbones which comprise the vast majority of the Internet's infrasctructure.
When Australia - and Africa, Malaysia, the Middle East, and Asia start launching their own billion dollar terabit satellites, laying their own massive fiber optic highways, and improving their telco infrastructure to support high bandwidths, then you can expect the US and European companies to enter into more aggressively competitive agreements for network access.
And that is, folks, what it's all about. Network access. The fiber, copper, satellite, and radio hardware costs money.
YES, you moron, I PAY FOR AN E-MAIL WHICH HAS BEEN SENT TO ME! You think this shit is free? I pay for the DSL line my computer uses to connect to the ISP I pay for where the server with my e-mail is housed that I pay to access.
You're whiney attitude is what offends. "Technologically Priveleged"? Remember that privelege is not always arbitrarily granted, and at least in my case I EARNED that privelege.
In this case, these people are PAYING for the ability to access information. Unlike a telephone call, which goes both ways, an Internet session involves FAR less data being sent out than what is coming in. So it makes perfect sense to NOT charge at a 1:1 ratio.
Perhaps the more open-minded /. readers might reflect on the fact that the industrialization of England and America would not have been possible without "Black ivory" (slaves) from Africa who for centuries provided the basic source of wealth of the plantation econonmy which in turn subsidized the industrial revolution?
Perhaps you should crack open a book and learn something of history. American industrialization was done on the backs of the Irish, then the Italians and Poles (all honkeys, the lot of 'em). The south's plantation economy primarily traded via export. Do you honestly think our civil war would have happenned otherwise?
Of course, you're all to happy to throw racism around in order to polarize the argument, but the fact is you're more racist if you think that the people of Africa are so weak that they can't rebuild after something that happenned hundreds of years ago. Perhaps if you weren't stuck in your own little world, shifting blame for the worlds "inequities" to the groups you feel comfortable demonizing, you would realize that Africa is a land of great potential, and is also a land where great potential has already been realized. There are cities in Africa which rival those of Europe in terms of culture and standard of living.
So let me understand this; ISP's want to be exempt from the regulation that the telephone industry suffers, but expect to reap the same benefits as the telephone industry were it exists?
And the Brits think this is a fleecing?
C'mon people, lets get real. There are already massive private sector and UN programs that bring Internet connectivity to 3rd world countries. What you have here is another example of big businesses trying to get welfare for themselves.
Emotions aside, the Constitution was written as a living document, meant to evolve to take on the changing demands of an evolving society. BUT, those first ten amendments were written to be unquestionable. They form the foundations by which our government operates with respect to it's subordinate governments (state, county, local) and its citizens. It very clearly defines both the powers and limitations of what the federal government can do. Looking at this document in a historical context is useful for understanding why they said these things, but looking at it in a modern context is required of us.
Just like the Mujahadeen, using heavy infantry armed with antiquated rifles and improvised weaponry using guerilla tactics did'nt kick the soviets out of Afghanistan?
No military in the history of man has been able to completely conquer a people not willing to be conquered.
If you honestly think that buying drugs is "harmless", you really need to take a step back. The illegal drug trade is operated by and profits post-marxist leninst rebel groups who have become nothing more than petty thugs that terrorize their local populations.
Then, you've got to consider that drug dealers USUALLY commit crimes to protect their turf, and drug users sometimes commit crimes to support their habit, and even more people get hurt.
So maybe if we legalize it, some of this will go away, but you can't sit there say with a straight face that the crackhead down the street isn't hurting more than just himself. I don't think you're that dumb.
And why not? No level of technologically advanced weaponry can defeat the will of a people fighting for their right of self determination. I would think the Viet-Namese, Mujahadeen, Somali Militia, and so on would have made that point clear by now.
Yes, it's different but the difference has nothing to do with the type of weapon or the compulsary impressement of citizens into the military (something that is also a reality in Israel). Swiss neutrality (which is a nice front, but in reality the Swiss economically support those they cannot militarily or politically support, so spare me the rhetoric) doesn't have a bearing either. The fact that every swiss male is taught respect for and proper handling of firearms is the at the root of the lack of a gun problem in that country.
Secondly, what is this hatred of Europe thing that seems to be in vogue right now?
It is the American response to the rough moral equivalent of US bashing that goes on persistantly and constantly in Europe. Ironically, Europe likes to talk about American arrogance, but fails to recognize it's own arrogance.
As to the rest of your comments, I would ask that you spend a little less time whittle away at the irrelevant points that I did not make, and focus on the primary issue: The reason for the lower per capita incidence of firearm violence in Switzerland is because of the education and attitudes towards firearms.
That's great, until you run into the next criminal that holds a gun of his own. Or do you think criminals do not wisen up to that?
How about, 'I don't give a shit if he has a gun or not'. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic. To think that a criminal has a moral standard that he/she applies to carrying a gun is as ludicrous as any other view you've expressed thus far.
I hope I will never be within shooting range from you, because as much as you trust your judgement, I do not.
That's fine by me, just know that you're perfectly safe in my "shooting range" (which is rougly 5,000 feet since I also own a rifle) so long as you are not in the act of committing a crime against myself, another person, or my property.
heh heh...the french are the last people who should cally anyone xenophobic.
Quite honestly, it's the stupidity of the people who leave guns, water, and fire sitting out in the open where kids can get to it that are the problem. When I was a kid, my parents kept the fire locked up in the stove, water locked up in the faucet, and the guns locked up in the top shelf of the closet.
I mean, it took forever to cut that damn lock off the gun, even after I managed to climb up and get it. I was pissed when I could'nt find the bullets...
That is essentially what is involved in the US.
To purchase a handgun, depending on the state, you have to either procure a permit (and wait 5 days for the permit to process, which is also a cooling off period), or submit to an instant background check. For both handguns and longguns, you have to fill out BATF form 4473, which basically asks you if you're a nut, child/wife beater, etc. Lying on the form is easy to do, and it's also purjury.
In some places, you cannot carry a firearm in public. Most places, you can carry it concealed with a permit. A few places you do not require a permit to carry in the open (but concealed still requires a permit). In almost every case, discharging the weapon in city or town limits is a crime, even if you are defending yourself or stopping a crime (in which case the court often dismisses the discharge under the "Doctrine of Lesser Harms", or "Doctrine of the Right of Self Defense").
To purchase a given quantity of guns in a year, you need to have a Federal Firearms License, which requires strict background checks, and you must maintain a log of all your guns and when they leave your posession.
In any of the above cases, fully automatic and silenced firearms require that you register the weapon and pay a $200 yearly tax (why would anyone want a silenced weapon? Well, it's a lot more fun to shoot targets when you don't have to worry about pissing off or waking the neighbors).
In all cases, the right of a US citizen to keep and bear arms (and by extension, to purchase) is protected and unimpeachable unless that person is convicted of a felony, kicked out the military dishonorably, or declared a nut by a judge. Unfortunately, the same people who vehemently defend the first amendment are noticeably silent about the second. As evidenced by this, there is currently a condition (it's not even a law, but it is enforced as such) where if you have had a restraining order placed against you, you cannot have a firearm. What that means is, your constitutional right can be stripped from you without due process, simply because someone else asks that you stay away from them.
Michael Kinsley, former editor of Slate and unabashed liberal, once said that "if liberals regarded the second amendment as they did the first, gun ownership would be mandatory".
Go next door to Switzerland bubba. 1 in 3 people there own a firearm (500,000 pistols and 600,000 semiautomatic rifles). Yet, the rate of violent crime in which guns are involved in that country of 6 million is so low, they don't even keep statistics.
[reference]
So, are we to conclude that merely the existance of a gun will lead to a shooting death? Or, would it not be more reasonable to assume that the attitudes a soceity has towards guns is at fault. Then, given the basic and fundamental fact that the government cannot, never has been, and never will be able to regulate a populations attitude, what sense does it make to legislate against guns?
That simple immutable fact, my friend, is why you are considered a typical eurotrash fucknut.
The point for me is that people are killed by guns and you CAN NOT DENY THAT.
I deny it. Unless you bludgeon someone with the gun, guns don't kill - it's the bullets that do the killing.
Fuck it, guns don't kill people, I kill people.
To date:
Yes, more children die from drowning or burns than die from guns, but nelly little faggots like you would rather attack the inanimate object involved in a shooting accident than the more culpable agent - the idiot so called adults who don't excercise proper supervision and safety in the area of their children.
But then, just as we should ban all guns, lets also ban DeCSS. Makes sense both ways right?
There are literally hundreds of such cases. If you ever listened to Art Bell (late night radio kook, fun show), you'd know about his book "The Coming Global Superstorm" (coauthored with Whitley Streiber). Throughout sections of the book, they support the possibility of catastrophic climate changes affecting civilization by pointing to evidence of past cultures many of which were thought to be very advanced industrially.
Lego Porn...
When I lived in North Carolina, if you slid anything into a car, touched a door handle, or even lifted a windsheild wiper blade, it could be considered grand theft auto. Normally, you had to have photo/video evidence showing the act, but it was prosecutable. Most of the time they dropped the charge to attempted vandelism though.
This article is a great sound and fury which signifies nothing. People have been commenting upon the video-game wars since '91. The obvious advantage of satellite intel was figured out with the Chronos missions of the 50's, and is the reason we've got a half dozen hubble space telescopes pointing down at us.
If you're going to write a report on modern military technology deployment, you might want to do a better job of explaining the variated threat we face today from both traditional military-industrial threats like China, to fluidic asymetric threats like rogue states which have the conventional ability to cause great damage, but not defeat, and support terrorist insurgents which can cause defeat without great damage.
Whatever happenned to the electromagnetic drives the navy was working on? seems to me that using magnetic fields to slither through water is preferrable to beating your way around with fins, propellers, etc.