"conceal from a communication service provider... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication"
If this is the actual wording then not only can a business not use NAT (or any any proxy server which a HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR) they also might have to replace a PBX with a centrex...
My argument would be that there is precisely one "computer" connected to the ISP: the NAT box. Sure, once it receives the data from the ISP it may send it to another machine on my internal network, but that's none of their business,
Typically with a utility there is some kind of demarcation point. Any cables or pipes one side are theirs any the other side are yours. You don't expect the electricity company to count up the number of electrical appliances you have; the gas company to count up the number of gas appliances you have or the water company to count up how many sinks/showers/baths/toilets you have. What next telephone companies want to outlaw PBXs or make a charge based on the number of extensions one has. Because by using one you are depriving them of the money they could be making if every telephone was directly connected to one of their lines?
Why can't the cable and DSL provider settle on a reasonable limit, such as "no more than 4 computers from the same household"? That way, it allows 99% of persons with routers to do what they want to do (allow multiple family members to surf the net, or allow them to surf the net from any of their computers)
As someone else said: Why is it any of their business? Shouldn't ISPs be treated like any other utilities?
There is a big difference between a patriot (someone who willingly supports whatever are efforts required sustain a country's constitutionally-defined structure, and constitutionally-guaranteed freedom),
One definition of "patriot" is "someone who supports their country always and their government when it deserves it". Governments tend to view things differently with the FBI listing supporting the US Constitution amongst its definitions of "terrorism".
and a nationalist (someone who blindly accepts whatever atrocities their government wishes to enact).
"nationalist" is more commonly applied to governments than people.
This begs the question as to who the 'patriots' really are - the people protesting this kind of legislation, and perhaps even the war effort in Iraq, or the ones who blindly accept it as a 'cost of doing freedom.'
You also get in to issues such as cults of personality surrounding political figures here.
People that broadcast TV realised there's no way to charge for that so they found alternative revenue in commercials. People that broadcast radio realised there's no way to charge for that so they found alternative revenue in commercials. People that boardcast satellite TV realised there's no way to charge for that, so they did it anyways and manipulated the government into policing it for them.
As well as putting commercials into their output. Effectivly you have the situation of the law attempting to prop up a business model which is broken. Regardless of how much "collateral damage" the attempting causes.
If it involves tossing photons through the air, it's light, not radio.
Photons are generic to EM radiation. You can just as easily have RF photons as visible light ones or at the other end of the spectrum X and Gamma ray photons.
these are essentially written by lawyers for the lobbying organizations, with editing performed by staffers in conjunction with the lobbyists and lawyers. the legislators know almost nothing about the laws they pass aside from the 30-second soundbite and the list of financial contributors that are either pro or anti.
If the legislators were doing their job they'd toss bills they don't understand in the trash. Of course if the legislators don't/won't do their jobs then it's the job of the public to put them in the trash.
That's lost potential revenue. You're not depriving the ISP of anything they would have otherwise had an inalienable claim to.
It the RIAA and MPAA can make the argument that loss of potential revenue equates to "harm" then any other corporate entity can probably claim the same kind of thing.
All phones I know of have an email address. Email is about as universal as you can get, and receiving messages is free so have your servers email you all you like!
Thus you can get spam sent to your phone, that sounds a good deal.
Furthermore, given that the US and UK invaded a sovereign country, they should foot the bill for the reconstruction, but (here's the kicker) they should be forced to use Iraqi contractors!
An even more radical idea, have Iraqi companies and government choose which contractors they want to use. Then send the bills to Washington and London. Maybe have the UN freeze enough British and American assets to act as a "deposit".
Ultimately, this looks like it's going to be another "liberated on our terms" deal
Kind of like the way the US "liberated" Cuba in the Spanish American war...
But, it seems more important to purchase national patriotic technology than good technology. (That must be why Americans still use Windows. After all, Linux originates in Europe and must so be inferior, by definition.;)
Let's buy steel from US companies, even if it's more expensive because they neglected to modernize their factories (in Europe, just about everything was rebuilt after WW2 - and the debts for foreign help, also from the US, have long since been paid. It was a very painful process, but it paid off). And because foreign steel is now cheaper and better, phone George to introduce some nice import taxes.
You also get the same situation with the US and Canadian lumber. On the other hand the US has decided to use the same kind of barcodes the rest of the planet has been using for the last 20 odd years.
The most important thing though is that GSM has become a global standard, a truly world-wide cell phone system. Your argument reminds me of the Token Ring vs. Ethernet wars, which in many respects are very similar to the CDMA vs. GSM "war"
On the other hand, I suppose that when the alternative is to be fed feet first into a plastic shredder the idea of a free phone system doesn't sound so bad. Even if it is a free American phone system.
So the US government is going to be handing out free handsets...
OK, the Iraqi people can choose whatever phone system that they want. The one that we are going to actually pay for, however, is a CDMA system. If the Iraqis want to save their pennies until they can buy their own phone system, then they are free to do so. No one is going to force them at gunpoint to use the system that the U.S. is going to install.
That would be nice if the US hadn't damaged the Iraqi phone system in the first place. Both by bombing it and supporting 12 years of sanctions. Maybe the US should pay to fix what they broke. i.e. the US pays the Iraqis choose who does the fixing.
After WWII, even most of the Arab countries were actually friendly towards the US.
The turning point here was the US comming out as explicitally pro-Israel. After the 1967 war, even though the only combatant to attack the US in this war was Israel.
The whole "democracy for everyone!" idea is bunk. What makes you think that a system of government that works well for a rich, industrialized nation will work equally well for a decentralized nomad country (Afghanistan) and a very conservative religious society (Iran).
There is not one single system of "democracy". The term literally means "rule by the people". It's quite possible to come up with a system of government which would be democratic for somewhere like Afghainstan. The first requirement is to actually listen to the people who live there.
Take Iran as a test case. The current government was put into place by a revolution of the people. That's the government they chose.
The current Iranian government came into existance when the Iranian people booted out a US backed tyrant. Prior to that Iran actually had a secular democratic government. Which was crushed by the US, with some British help, to protect corporate interests in Iranian oil. Anyway a government put into place by the people is by definition "democratic".
If given the option, right now, they'd choose it again. Is it "right" to remake their country in our own image?
More interstingly if the American people were given the option to remake their government would the result be what exists now?
And the American people cannot afford to not know what mistakes and poor courses of actions made in the past if they are supposed to elect worthy leaders.
Anyway people can't learn from history if that history is kept secret.
But 25 years for some old skeletons in the closet? If they actually did the right thing the public should be able to come to the same judgement.
Or if they did the rong thing the appropriate judgement.
Most of these sorts of releases (or lack thereof) more or less have to do with reasons of PR (or covering someones ass) rather than national security.
Probably to the point that "national security" actually means CYA in most cases. e.g someone did something stupid, someone wasted lots of money, even that there are high crimes involved.
For instance, even though my late grandfather has been out of the precursor of the CIA for 57 years, his work is *still* classified and my (limited) understanding is that national security has little to do with it. Rather, it has to do with not embarrasing the American government.
Thing is that protecting the US government almost certainly isn't "national security". Since the "nation" of the USA is comprised of its people.
I would have thought that after some of the players involved had passed on
Maybe not all of the "players" anyway there might be relatives who want to protect the "reputation" of someone or other.
Hey, Jeri Ryan can act! Watch the Voyager episode "Body and Soul" if you don't believe me. She plays 7 of 9, who gets "possessed" by the holographic Doctor. And then she plays him in her body drunk. And then she switches back to "normal" 7 of 9.
But did they cast her for her acting abilities or the size of her breasts?
Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
As to Israel, I suspect that a President Al Gore would have behaved in a similar fashion. George Bush the Elder was the only recent President to actually try and pressure Israel into making a peace (cue for flames on Suicide Bombers - something I see as mistaking cause and effect) and things went a long way forward then before some fascist kid murdered the Israeli PM Rabin and caused the whole thing to unravel again.
Interesting how you call Rabin's killer a "fascist kid" rather than an "Israeli terrorist". As for support for Israel form the US Government the "friends of Israel" in Congress are probably far more significent that whoever is in the Whitehouse. They hold the pursestrings.
Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
People in that part of the world think that the US is just out to make itself more wealthy at their expense. They see our support of Israel, a country that is doing some truely horiffic things, and they can't believe that we are trying to do what is good and right.
There's a lot more involved here than just the US government's unconditional support of Israel. There is also how the US treated the last democratic government in Iraq (as well as similar happenings in South & Central America), that both SH and UBL were supported by the US in fairly recent times, etc. The Iraqis have plenty of reasons to distrust the US government, almost no reasons to trust them.
Never mind that it probably is the right thing to do, we were asked not to and we went ahead and did it because *we* wanted to.
Whilst removing SH is the right thing to do the US government has gone about things the wrong way. It isn't even clear that this is the actual primary aim of the US.
I can't imagine people in the middle east would trust any government we setup or trust us for that matter unless we stop supporting Israel.
With so many "friends of Israel" in the US Congress how likely do you think that is. They'd rather cut the budget for supporting veterans than send less money to Israel.
I know they got rounded up, tortured and killed in WW2 but that doesn't give them the right to do it to someone else.
It isn't even the same "they". Do you see any people in their 80's and 90's in the IDF? Nor is the entirity of the Israeli population made up of people who in occupied Europe in the 1940s (or their children/grandchildren). The final couple of nails in this coffin are that the Arabs had nothing to do with what happened in Europe in the second world war and the Zionists started persecuting the Palestinians in the 1920s.
I was pretty shocked by Saddams speech, vowing that the invaders would find certain fiery death and whatnot. How's he going to kill all those invaders, with weapons he pinky-swore he doesn't have?
When did he claim not to have oil? That can be used to give invaders a "fiery death".
Slashdot Mirror
"conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication"
If this is the actual wording then not only can a business not use NAT (or any any proxy server which a HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR) they also might have to replace a PBX with a centrex...
My argument would be that there is precisely one "computer" connected to the ISP: the NAT box. Sure, once it receives the data from the ISP it may send it to another machine on my internal network, but that's none of their business,
Typically with a utility there is some kind of demarcation point. Any cables or pipes one side are theirs any the other side are yours. You don't expect the electricity company to count up the number of electrical appliances you have; the gas company to count up the number of gas appliances you have or the water company to count up how many sinks/showers/baths/toilets you have.
What next telephone companies want to outlaw PBXs or make a charge based on the number of extensions one has. Because by using one you are depriving them of the money they could be making if every telephone was directly connected to one of their lines?
Why can't the cable and DSL provider settle on a reasonable limit, such as "no more than 4 computers from the same household"? That way, it allows 99% of persons with routers to do what they want to do (allow multiple family members to surf the net, or allow them to surf the net from any of their computers)
As someone else said: Why is it any of their business? Shouldn't ISPs be treated like any other utilities?
There is a big difference between a patriot (someone who willingly supports whatever are efforts required sustain a country's constitutionally-defined structure, and constitutionally-guaranteed freedom),
One definition of "patriot" is "someone who supports their country always and their government when it deserves it". Governments tend to view things differently with the FBI listing supporting the US Constitution amongst its definitions of "terrorism".
and a nationalist (someone who blindly accepts whatever atrocities their government wishes to enact).
"nationalist" is more commonly applied to governments than people.
This begs the question as to who the 'patriots' really are - the people protesting this kind of legislation, and perhaps even the war effort in Iraq, or the ones who blindly accept it as a 'cost of doing freedom.'
You also get in to issues such as cults of personality surrounding political figures here.
People that broadcast TV realised there's no way to charge for that so they found alternative revenue in commercials. People that broadcast radio realised there's no way to charge for that so they found alternative revenue in commercials. People that boardcast satellite TV realised there's no way to charge for that, so they did it anyways and manipulated the government into policing it for them.
As well as putting commercials into their output.
Effectivly you have the situation of the law attempting to prop up a business model which is broken. Regardless of how much "collateral damage" the attempting causes.
If it involves tossing photons through the air, it's light, not radio.
Photons are generic to EM radiation. You can just as easily have RF photons as visible light ones or at the other end of the spectrum X and Gamma ray photons.
these are essentially written by lawyers for the lobbying organizations, with editing performed by staffers in conjunction with the lobbyists and lawyers. the legislators know almost nothing about the laws they pass aside from the 30-second soundbite and the list of financial contributors that are either pro or anti.
If the legislators were doing their job they'd toss bills they don't understand in the trash. Of course if the legislators don't/won't do their jobs then it's the job of the public to put them in the trash.
That's lost potential revenue. You're not depriving the ISP of anything they would have otherwise had an inalienable claim to.
It the RIAA and MPAA can make the argument that loss of potential revenue equates to "harm" then any other corporate entity can probably claim the same kind of thing.
All phones I know of have an email address. Email is about as universal as you can get, and receiving messages is free so have your servers email you all you like!
Thus you can get spam sent to your phone, that sounds a good deal.
Furthermore, given that the US and UK invaded a sovereign country, they should foot the bill for the reconstruction, but (here's the kicker) they should be forced to use Iraqi contractors!
An even more radical idea, have Iraqi companies and government choose which contractors they want to use. Then send the bills to Washington and London. Maybe have the UN freeze enough British and American assets to act as a "deposit".
Ultimately, this looks like it's going to be another "liberated on our terms" deal
Kind of like the way the US "liberated" Cuba in the Spanish American war...
But, it seems more important to purchase national patriotic technology than good technology. (That must be why Americans still use Windows. After all, Linux originates in Europe and must so be inferior, by definition. ;)
Let's buy steel from US companies, even if it's more expensive because they neglected to modernize their factories (in Europe, just about everything was rebuilt after WW2 - and the debts for foreign help, also from the US, have long since been paid. It was a very painful process, but it paid off). And because foreign steel is now cheaper and better, phone George to introduce some nice import taxes.
You also get the same situation with the US and Canadian lumber. On the other hand the US has decided to use the same kind of barcodes the rest of the planet has been using for the last 20 odd years.
First of all, we in the U.S. shouldn't be paying for reconstruction.
Why not, the US broke/will break it?
The country has plenty of oil and is basically a very rich country, although may need some help in getting back on-line.
By this reasoning it would be ok for someone to demolish Bill Gates' house on the basis that "he can afford to rebuild it".
Understand that Iraq isn't the size of the U.S., they need to be able to interact with other European states
Iraq isn't in Europe, it's in Asia.
The most important thing though is that GSM has become a global standard, a truly world-wide cell phone system. Your argument reminds me of the Token Ring vs. Ethernet wars, which in many respects are very similar to the CDMA vs. GSM "war"
Or even VHS vs Betamax.
On the other hand, I suppose that when the alternative is to be fed feet first into a plastic shredder the idea of a free phone system doesn't sound so bad. Even if it is a free American phone system.
So the US government is going to be handing out free handsets...
OK, the Iraqi people can choose whatever phone system that they want. The one that we are going to actually pay for, however, is a CDMA system. If the Iraqis want to save their pennies until they can buy their own phone system, then they are free to do so. No one is going to force them at gunpoint to use the system that the U.S. is going to install.
That would be nice if the US hadn't damaged the Iraqi phone system in the first place. Both by bombing it and supporting 12 years of sanctions.
Maybe the US should pay to fix what they broke. i.e. the US pays the Iraqis choose who does the fixing.
After WWII, even most of the Arab countries were actually friendly towards the US.
The turning point here was the US comming out as explicitally pro-Israel. After the 1967 war, even though the only combatant to attack the US in this war was Israel.
They are not talking about forcing the use of CDMA phones. They are only talking about the system that American taxpayer will pay for.
So why is the US government so concerned about oil facilities and stealing frozen Iraqi assets?
The new Iraqi government is free to pay for their own GSM system.
Whatever puppet government the US puts in place will be kept on short strings at least for the next 10-15 years.
For whatever reason, Iraqis want to live as they do.
Or they consider living under Saddam Hussein to be the best of several bad options.
It's as if we ceded the government to the Teamsters, on purpose, and appointed some thug as perpetual president.
Something the US government has plenty of experience. Including in Iraq. Remember SH did not come to power in isolation.
The whole "democracy for everyone!" idea is bunk. What makes you think that a system of government that works well for a rich, industrialized nation will work equally well for a decentralized nomad country (Afghanistan) and a very conservative religious society (Iran).
There is not one single system of "democracy". The term literally means "rule by the people". It's quite possible to come up with a system of government which would be democratic for somewhere like Afghainstan. The first requirement is to actually listen to the people who live there.
Take Iran as a test case. The current government was put into place by a revolution of the people. That's the government they chose.
The current Iranian government came into existance when the Iranian people booted out a US backed tyrant. Prior to that Iran actually had a secular democratic government. Which was crushed by the US, with some British help, to protect corporate interests in Iranian oil.
Anyway a government put into place by the people is by definition "democratic".
If given the option, right now, they'd choose it again. Is it "right" to remake their country in our own image?
More interstingly if the American people were given the option to remake their government would the result be what exists now?
And the American people cannot afford to not know what mistakes and poor courses of actions made in the past if they are supposed to elect worthy leaders.
Anyway people can't learn from history if that history is kept secret.
But 25 years for some old skeletons in the closet? If they actually did the right thing the public should be able to come to the same judgement.
Or if they did the rong thing the appropriate judgement.
Most of these sorts of releases (or lack thereof) more or less have to do with reasons of PR (or covering someones ass) rather than national security.
Probably to the point that "national security" actually means CYA in most cases. e.g someone did something stupid, someone wasted lots of money, even that there are high crimes involved.
For instance, even though my late grandfather has been out of the precursor of the CIA for 57 years, his work is *still* classified and my (limited) understanding is that national security has little to do with it. Rather, it has to do with not embarrasing the American government.
Thing is that protecting the US government almost certainly isn't "national security". Since the "nation" of the USA is comprised of its people.
I would have thought that after some of the players involved had passed on
Maybe not all of the "players" anyway there might be relatives who want to protect the "reputation" of someone or other.
Hey, Jeri Ryan can act! Watch the Voyager episode "Body and Soul" if you don't believe me. She plays 7 of 9, who gets "possessed" by the holographic Doctor. And then she plays him in her body drunk. And then she switches back to "normal" 7 of 9.
But did they cast her for her acting abilities or the size of her breasts?
As to Israel, I suspect that a President Al Gore would have behaved in a similar fashion. George Bush the Elder was the only recent President to actually try and pressure Israel into making a peace (cue for flames on Suicide Bombers - something I see as mistaking cause and effect) and things went a long way forward then before some fascist kid murdered the Israeli PM Rabin and caused the whole thing to unravel again.
Interesting how you call Rabin's killer a "fascist kid" rather than an "Israeli terrorist".
As for support for Israel form the US Government the "friends of Israel" in Congress are probably far more significent that whoever is in the Whitehouse. They hold the pursestrings.
People in that part of the world think that the US is just out to make itself more wealthy at their expense. They see our support of Israel, a country that is doing some truely horiffic things, and they can't believe that we are trying to do what is good and right.
There's a lot more involved here than just the US government's unconditional support of Israel. There is also how the US treated the last democratic government in Iraq (as well as similar happenings in South & Central America), that both SH and UBL were supported by the US in fairly recent times, etc. The Iraqis have plenty of reasons to distrust the US government, almost no reasons to trust them.
Never mind that it probably is the right thing to do, we were asked not to and we went ahead and did it because *we* wanted to.
Whilst removing SH is the right thing to do the US government has gone about things the wrong way. It isn't even clear that this is the actual primary aim of the US.
I can't imagine people in the middle east would trust any government we setup or trust us for that matter unless we stop supporting Israel.
With so many "friends of Israel" in the US Congress how likely do you think that is. They'd rather cut the budget for supporting veterans than send less money to Israel.
I know they got rounded up, tortured and killed in WW2 but that doesn't give them the right to do it to someone else.
It isn't even the same "they". Do you see any people in their 80's and 90's in the IDF? Nor is the entirity of the Israeli population made up of people who in occupied Europe in the 1940s (or their children/grandchildren). The final couple of nails in this coffin are that the Arabs had nothing to do with what happened in Europe in the second world war and the Zionists started persecuting the Palestinians in the 1920s.
I was pretty shocked by Saddams speech, vowing that the invaders would find certain fiery death and whatnot. How's he going to kill all those invaders, with weapons he pinky-swore he doesn't have?
When did he claim not to have oil? That can be used to give invaders a "fiery death".