Approx. 650$ through Dell with a server. However, SBS is a royal pain in the ass, and I wish I'd never touched it. If you want to have two servers, you have to install W2k3 standard on your SBS server and buy a copy of Exchange and all the other software it comes with. SBS must contain all the catalogs, and must be a domain controller. You cannot have a trust with another domain.
So all that money you "saved" with SBS gets thrown in the crapper when you aren't a small small-business anymore. You have to buy all the software and licenses over when you've outgrown the one-server-does-all-(you don't have a choice) of SBS.
And the typical anonymous coward is still misinformed, insulting, and ignorant.
As it turns out, all of your points are easily invalidated. Choppers and fighters are both vulnerable to rifle fire, you're just unlikely to hit either in a critical place. Personnel combat armor does not cover full body, and is not some kind of force field. You get hit with a sniper shot, and you're likely quite dead (and maybe dismembered). As for tanks, hell, a longbow archer can stick an arrow into the side of that armor. You won't be stopping a tank that way, but you think somehow the magical armor of the soldiers will stop it? You want to stop a tank, you take out a tread. That is within the grasp of anyone with a bit of intellect.
I do not have a typical set of political beliefs regarding weaponry. My belief is that if the government wants to be allowed, then the populace needs to be allowed. If they want to play with their Apache helicopters, F-22s, B51s, etc, then they have to be prepared to allow the citizens to possess the same. Sure, you couldn't legally use most of those weapons, but if it came down to an armed rebellion, you have to stand a chance.
Of course, the part that all you government is mommmy, government is daddy types miss is that if it came down to armed revolt, there would likely be military support for it. Just because someone is a soldier does not mean they automatically agree with everything the government says. Once you stop being an enlist, you tend to be expected to think for yourself somewhat. You should try doing the same.
As long as they don't mind me suing them, avoiding the cameras, purpusefully invalidating the input to the cameras, or putting up my own cameras. Seeing as it would be illegal for me to do those things with the government run cameras, your post is kind of moot. Then again, the private cameras on a public road could not directly result in prosecution.
I object to being monitored at all, but on private property I have to go with what the owner wants, or I can leave. The only way to avoid the big brother government cameras is to leave the country. That is not acceptable.
My post isn't misleading at all. All male citizens are required to have a gun. You even confirm that in your reponse. It means that nearly every household has at least one gun with ammunition. I did *not* say they carried their guns around with them. That would be quite annoying to do with an assault rifle.
The top fifty hits or so will tell you all about it, and that's just for Australia. Gun bans are a complete failure, and gun control doesn't prevent any crime.
Replace Austalia with England, and the first few hits tell you how Englands violent crime rates are higher than America. It will also tell you about how gun crime went up around 40% since guns were banned.
If you ignore all the evidence that gun control and gun bans work, then I suppose you lot have an argument. History, however, clearly shows that removing the weapons is a mark of an oppressive government that has gone out of control.
That is such a typical bs avoid-the-issue response. Yes, and hands kill people, so everyone should have their hands cut off. I bet you also think that abortion should be illegal, and so should guns, cars and SUVs, cigarettes, fast food, bow and arrows and crossbows, knives, and so on?
In the US at least, people are guaranteed the right to own a firearm. Nobody is guaranteed the right to monitor the populace with a vast network of cameras and recording. This is because people need to defend themselves, and guns are an equalizer. You can't effectively fight off a bear, an assailant, or the government without a gun.
Private citizens doing something is very different from allowing the government to do the same. I have simple and easy recourse if an individual were to invade my privacy. I have much less recourse if the government enacts a law that does the same.
You don't want to just hand the government things that it can abuse. You can't prevent people from abusing things, but you can cause there to be repurcussions, be it criminal or civil. Government is like the people, but without the repurcussions and with a lot more power.
Very true, and so on to specific places and numbers!
Alaska and Vermont do not require anything special for even concealed carry of a handgun. All citizens are free to do so. New Hampshire is also very open in it's gun policies. Those three states have much lower violent crime statistics than England.
In Switzerland, all men have guns, and it is also has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Both Australia and England saw large jumps in violent crime after instituting draconian gun control laws. At one point, Manchester was even being referred to as Gunchester, as there were so many illegal guns on the street.
On the other hand, most countries that instituted gun bans shortly followed them with genocides. Turkey, Russia, China, Germany, Uganda, Guatemala, and Cambodia all had mass genocides after banning guns - all in the last 80 years. There was also that pathetic tragedy in Sierra Leone where the UN conned the populace into turning over their guns, and both the populace *and* the UN peace keepers were slaughtered as a direct result.
The US ATF even had to publish the stats that well over 90% of guns used in crimes were illegaly obtained. Gun control did nothing but help to ensure that the victims of those crimes didn't have a weapon.
The place I mentioned that required gun ownership was Kennesaw, Georgia. It is not far away from Atlanta. In 1982 they passed a law that the head of every household had to keep a gun and ammo in their home. Kennesaw had their crime rate drop ~90%, and their population more than double over the subsequent 10 years.
You don't know that the kidnapper wouldn't have been caught and convicted without the camera. The footage made it easier for the police to track and the courts to convict the perp.
The cameras *will* be abused, I'm not assuming anything about it. As you pointed out, the currect system is corrupted, too. The camera system has a tremendous amount more potential for abuse. So right now, they destroy the footage. Perhaps next month they will begin to retain the footage. The system is already there, so why not keep a copy of the data? It's making better use of the system, it allows for better profiling, and can help to catch the terrorists who are conducting a detailed plot.
It's easy to convince people to go another small step. The small step with cameras is only small in procedure. The ramifications to freedom are truly staggering. You're assuming that the tech will only be used appropriately. I say that the tech will be used to it's potential, and that the potential is undesirable. You have to consider the extremes, because they have an unfortunate tendancy to become the norm.
The obvious answer is that guns are illegal in the UK, so there are few gun-related incidents. It just doesn't solve the problem of violent crime; it just shifts it from one deadly weapon to another. It also means people have less of a way to defend themselves against criminals and the government. If the overall violent crime rate went down (and stayed down) through banning guns, then you have something to talk about. I don't know if that is the case.
Some of those nasty places in the US are a whole lot worse than most anywhere in England. Not as bad as the OP numbers would require, of course. Then again, I don't live that far away from a city, and I don't hear of gun fatality. Where I grew up, most people had a rifle and/or shotgun. In the twenty years I lived in that area, there wasn't one gun related crime, let alone fatality. The only murder was someone that was killed by crazy guy repeatedly stabbing them, and that was a few towns over.
Every country has had slavery. If you want to say something bad about the US' version of slavery, at least mention how the US was the only western country that rid itself of slavery through violence. I believe it is also the only one to remove slavery as a propoganda and destabilisation move instead of a moral shift.
First, very small amounts of the US have higher rates for theft *OR* violent crime than England. Those places also have a significantly higher population density than London.
Second, most places in the US with very high proliferation of firearms have much lower crime rates than England.
Third, the US was founded on having freedom. England was founded on doing what the royal family tells you to do. That doesn't make you Brits see an advantage, it makes you ignore the problems and believe the disadvantages of your way are positives.
I'd rather have my car stolen than to be shot in the head, too. However, England just replaced getting shot with getting stabbed or hit with a blunt object. Not less crime, just less gun crime. When there are no guns, criminals just use something else.
Give the whole set of statistics. How many assaults are there? How many assaults with a deadly weapon? Are you numbers convictions, or incidents? Are your numbers incidents per population, or total for the country? There are a lot more people in the US than Canada and England, combined.
In places in the US with very lenient gun control, violent crime tends to be extremely low. There is even one place where you are required by law to own a gun; they don't have violent crime.
Gun control is about punishing people for a crime they haven't committed.
Being under 24/7 surveillance means you no longer have privacy. You become tracked in all of your travels, all of your associations, all of your purchases. All of your patterns outside the house are now known. The government has an immediate and fairly accurate profile of all citizens. You commit a crime, no matter how minor or how ridiculous, and the government knows. You effectively have police at every streetcorner and every light post, watching, but recording everything they see.
The cop can both make a judgement call and is not able to retain all data observed. In modern government, most laws should not be applied most times. We have far too many of them, and many are created with the promise of "not being strictly enforced". Since we are not likely to throw out all these laws that need to be, you do the next best and have someone with a brain enforcing them.
The cop follows you in the car, and observes you. If you do nothing, the cop does not bother you. If you are being suspicious, the cop runs your plate. It is not a system of continual invasion of privacy, as these ridiculous cameras are.
That's not really true, you're improperly ordering things. In a free society, you have the freedom to kill anyone you want, as an example. However, you aren't free to get away with doing so. You are able to commit the wrong act, but you will be punished for doing so. The idea of preventing the act from occurring is a serious restriction, and much more far reaching than simply preventing murder. It means you live in a police state, where your actions are monitored and controlled.
People are often willing to set cultural and social standards on what is acceptable. We don't think murder or assault is acceptable, so you are punished for exercising your freedom to commit those acts. Government is about providing a framework for mutual protection and fair execution of law, as determined by the social standards. Just because most governments have ended up going too far doesn't mean that it's correct. Many citizens are not happy with their governments in these countries.
You're spot on with the 1984 assessment. Some freedoms are easier to live without than others. However, that doesn't make it acceptable to take the freedom away. Punish the crime, but don't remove the freedom to commit the crime.
Once you start trading freedom for "security" the system has already broken down. You don't have to be an anarchist for this, you could be a classical conservative, for example. That would be the prevailing attitude that lead to the US Constitution.
1) Of the dozen people that I've shown Firefly to, the only person that did not want to watch more of it *right now* was someone that doesn't watch *any* TV. He complained about the music and that it wasn't a strictly action show.
2) It will likely recoup costs before all theaters pull the film. It has less than $3 million to go. That's not counting DVD sales.
3) Fox *did in fact screw it over*. Quit trolling, you have no facts. A cursory check of the airing details shows that they sabatoged the storyline by screwing up the order. Nobody would've liked Babylon5 if they showed all the episodes in a random order, with the pilot after watching a good portion of the first season.
I had a three day period where my old w2k3 file server randomly trapped and rebooted. Then it just stopped happened. It was some crash condition in the WHQL ATI driver shipped with Windows. It never happpened before or after those three days.
I *have* had crashes under Windows that resulted from system resource conditions. It's not supposed to be possible, but I guess that isn't completely true.
Aside from that, the most common reason to see a Windows box trashed is now spyware.
That is close to correct English grammar, but is not English spelling. Old English and Middle English are very different from modern English. I know what you're saying, and I think that you know better. We aren't experiencing the evolution of a language, we're experiencing the destruction of a language. People don't know how things are supposed to be spelled, and they don't bother with grammar.
For example, if you take the average person on this site, you'll tend to get passable to good grammer and spelling. Some people are very proper, some don't try, and most make only a few mistakes: a typical distribution.
1337-speak and txtspk are, respectively, ridiculous and a throw-back to Old English. I don't like trying to read Old English, because you almost have to subvocalise it to read it. That everyone spelled different from one another does not make it better.
I've been accused of flamebaiting more than a few times for that view, unfortunately. Then again, I'm heavily opposed to the 16th and 17th amendments and the results of the poor design of the Civil Rights Act, among other things. I supported rejecting the Koyoto Protocol because of how it attempted to give international control over what sovereign countries can do.
Giving ICANN to the UN would give them a potential revenue source. They need to maintain having no revenue. If they are minimally funded, they will continue having no ability to use force. As soon as they got that revenue, we would see them trying to take control of national powers.
I think you're right... there is very little value to an "EU-Net" (or whatever), since much of the content would not be available to those users. How many people would want to go back to MiniTel when everyone else has the Internet. If they tried to do a gateway between the two networks... can you imagine the costs associated? Or people could just keep using the Internet and not bother with "EU-Net".
IPv6 is most important for the number of addresses. People wouldn't have to do NAT gateways any more. You would be able to have everyone be an actual peer again. There are a number of nice, and not nice, things about IPv6, but it would fix a lot of problems. Everything is functional today, though, so there isn't a huge reason to jump into it.
As a body that exists only to help coordinate between countries, that is a reasonable way of doing it. That's why the UN can't be allowed to get involved in such things as the internet. It is something that is used by people, not by countries. As a vehicle to push for a wholly independant body managing something like DNS infrastructure, that's fine. Having anything to do with the actual structure is not.
I'm not trying to argue that the EU shouldn't have a TLD, just that they would get a ccTLD if they became one. Otherwise, they have to petition just like any other group that wants a TLD created. There is the.int TLD that the EU is using now, and there are ccTLDs for each member country. There isn't a.nato,.opec,.nafta, or.un TLD either.
Also, don't assume that I have tremendous faith in the US government. I still maintain that I would rather live in the US than any other country. Rather than leave the US as it's become something that I don't like, I try to fix the problems to put things back the way they're supposed to be. I don't want the US involved in other countries' operations any more than I want the UN doing the same.
I do feel that democracy is better than anything else when it comes to governing bodies. I also feel that if another country's citizens decide on something different, there is nothing wrong with that; I would just disagree with them.
The UN, as far as an avenue for diplomatic discussion, is fine, even necessary. However, when it tries to get into running things and attempting to create what amounts to laws, then I do *not* think it's fine. I also don't think that anything which would allow the UN to have a revenue stream outside of voluntary contribution is fine. As soon as the UN manages to get funding, it will attempt the same sort of power grab as the US Federal did with the income tax amendment.
You mention language, and I agree, english is not the most commonly spoken language. It is of benefit to choosing a character set that everyone can use, or at least a system where you can represent any domain in any character set. Then you could have a kanji domain name, but also have a correlated roman character set version that automatically goes with it. That would be perfectly fine by me.
You do realize that this "split" would mean a completely separate network? If somewhere decided to just start using IPs, and set up routing for it, it would screw up all the routing. They would be disconnected, and whatever is linking them de-peered until they stopped doing it.
IPv6 would make this less of an issue, though, and that's what needs to happen. Keep the governments out of things as much as possible.
A British guy that was working on the US sponsered Internet, using US developed protocols, and almost certainly on US designed hardware. At that time, it might have even been a computer built in the US, by Americans. A combination of American companies and US government made the WWW possible.
However, since DNS is not HTTP/HTML, I don't see what your point is.
Pardon? From a democratic point of view, the UN is the worst thing. You have no elected representation, no review, no say at all. Other countries can make decisions that try to affect change in your country.
In a parliamentary democracy, you *elect* the representatives, and then they argue with each other. In the UN, maybe you elect the person who appoints the ambassador, maybe you have a dictator that appoints the abassador. There is no democracy with the UN.
* You are not an EU citizen. There is no such country. You are a citizen of a country that is currently a member of the EU.
*.eu is a country code, and there is no such country, so there is no such ccTLD.
* Not adding a new TLD is not a restriction in the way that you imply it. They are not censoring, they are not taking something down. ICANN just didn't add the TLD.
* The.iq TLD is silly. They had an American that was arrested own it. Assets were seized, the.iq TLD was held. Maybe Iraq shouldn't have sold it to that guy?
* The UN would guarantee no such thing as no restrictions. They would end up doing some mix of the following: completely screwing up DNS (a la most of their other programs), turning it into a tax source, making it a political system instead of a technical one, restricting it, futher encumbering it with IP bullshit.
One of the things they're preaching about it internationalized domain names. This sounds wonderful, except for the part where that means much of the world can't access domains. How would you type in a chinese domain name on a british layout keyboard... or a cyrillic domain, or arabic, etc. I certainly understand the desire to do such things, but there are reasons for the limitation. I suppose we could all re-enable IDN support in our browsers and get that today, though, without the UN mucking anything up.
You have a dangerously high and misled faith in the UN. They are not some kind of perfection; they barely work at all! Countries are governed by their respective governments, which means the UN has no authority. The only reason the UN can do anything is by a country's permission, or through the use of members' force.
Introduce an install options screen? I think you mean that they should put it back in. Also, they could try excluding Outlook Express, MSN Messenger, and the various games, as examples, from the list of "protected operating system files" that get automatically replaced if you manually delete them.
At least you can get back more control of the OS install by using something like nLite, and undoing a bunch of the MS baby options.
Slashdot Mirror
Approx. 650$ through Dell with a server. However, SBS is a royal pain in the ass, and I wish I'd never touched it. If you want to have two servers, you have to install W2k3 standard on your SBS server and buy a copy of Exchange and all the other software it comes with. SBS must contain all the catalogs, and must be a domain controller. You cannot have a trust with another domain.
So all that money you "saved" with SBS gets thrown in the crapper when you aren't a small small-business anymore. You have to buy all the software and licenses over when you've outgrown the one-server-does-all-(you don't have a choice) of SBS.
And the typical anonymous coward is still misinformed, insulting, and ignorant.
As it turns out, all of your points are easily invalidated. Choppers and fighters are both vulnerable to rifle fire, you're just unlikely to hit either in a critical place. Personnel combat armor does not cover full body, and is not some kind of force field. You get hit with a sniper shot, and you're likely quite dead (and maybe dismembered). As for tanks, hell, a longbow archer can stick an arrow into the side of that armor. You won't be stopping a tank that way, but you think somehow the magical armor of the soldiers will stop it? You want to stop a tank, you take out a tread. That is within the grasp of anyone with a bit of intellect.
I do not have a typical set of political beliefs regarding weaponry. My belief is that if the government wants to be allowed, then the populace needs to be allowed. If they want to play with their Apache helicopters, F-22s, B51s, etc, then they have to be prepared to allow the citizens to possess the same. Sure, you couldn't legally use most of those weapons, but if it came down to an armed rebellion, you have to stand a chance.
Of course, the part that all you government is mommmy, government is daddy types miss is that if it came down to armed revolt, there would likely be military support for it. Just because someone is a soldier does not mean they automatically agree with everything the government says. Once you stop being an enlist, you tend to be expected to think for yourself somewhat. You should try doing the same.
As long as they don't mind me suing them, avoiding the cameras, purpusefully invalidating the input to the cameras, or putting up my own cameras. Seeing as it would be illegal for me to do those things with the government run cameras, your post is kind of moot. Then again, the private cameras on a public road could not directly result in prosecution.
I object to being monitored at all, but on private property I have to go with what the owner wants, or I can leave. The only way to avoid the big brother government cameras is to leave the country. That is not acceptable.
My post isn't misleading at all. All male citizens are required to have a gun. You even confirm that in your reponse. It means that nearly every household has at least one gun with ammunition. I did *not* say they carried their guns around with them. That would be quite annoying to do with an assault rifle.
Care to back up any of the information that I asked about three posts up? It would answer your question quite handily.
% 20ban%20australia
http://www.google.com/search?q=crime%20rate%20gun
The top fifty hits or so will tell you all about it, and that's just for Australia. Gun bans are a complete failure, and gun control doesn't prevent any crime.
Replace Austalia with England, and the first few hits tell you how Englands violent crime rates are higher than America. It will also tell you about how gun crime went up around 40% since guns were banned.
If you ignore all the evidence that gun control and gun bans work, then I suppose you lot have an argument. History, however, clearly shows that removing the weapons is a mark of an oppressive government that has gone out of control.
That is such a typical bs avoid-the-issue response. Yes, and hands kill people, so everyone should have their hands cut off. I bet you also think that abortion should be illegal, and so should guns, cars and SUVs, cigarettes, fast food, bow and arrows and crossbows, knives, and so on?
In the US at least, people are guaranteed the right to own a firearm. Nobody is guaranteed the right to monitor the populace with a vast network of cameras and recording. This is because people need to defend themselves, and guns are an equalizer. You can't effectively fight off a bear, an assailant, or the government without a gun.
Private citizens doing something is very different from allowing the government to do the same. I have simple and easy recourse if an individual were to invade my privacy. I have much less recourse if the government enacts a law that does the same.
You don't want to just hand the government things that it can abuse. You can't prevent people from abusing things, but you can cause there to be repurcussions, be it criminal or civil. Government is like the people, but without the repurcussions and with a lot more power.
Very true, and so on to specific places and numbers!
Alaska and Vermont do not require anything special for even concealed carry of a handgun. All citizens are free to do so. New Hampshire is also very open in it's gun policies. Those three states have much lower violent crime statistics than England.
In Switzerland, all men have guns, and it is also has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Both Australia and England saw large jumps in violent crime after instituting draconian gun control laws. At one point, Manchester was even being referred to as Gunchester, as there were so many illegal guns on the street.
On the other hand, most countries that instituted gun bans shortly followed them with genocides. Turkey, Russia, China, Germany, Uganda, Guatemala, and Cambodia all had mass genocides after banning guns - all in the last 80 years. There was also that pathetic tragedy in Sierra Leone where the UN conned the populace into turning over their guns, and both the populace *and* the UN peace keepers were slaughtered as a direct result.
The US ATF even had to publish the stats that well over 90% of guns used in crimes were illegaly obtained. Gun control did nothing but help to ensure that the victims of those crimes didn't have a weapon.
The place I mentioned that required gun ownership was Kennesaw, Georgia. It is not far away from Atlanta. In 1982 they passed a law that the head of every household had to keep a gun and ammo in their home. Kennesaw had their crime rate drop ~90%, and their population more than double over the subsequent 10 years.
You don't know that the kidnapper wouldn't have been caught and convicted without the camera. The footage made it easier for the police to track and the courts to convict the perp.
The cameras *will* be abused, I'm not assuming anything about it. As you pointed out, the currect system is corrupted, too. The camera system has a tremendous amount more potential for abuse. So right now, they destroy the footage. Perhaps next month they will begin to retain the footage. The system is already there, so why not keep a copy of the data? It's making better use of the system, it allows for better profiling, and can help to catch the terrorists who are conducting a detailed plot.
It's easy to convince people to go another small step. The small step with cameras is only small in procedure. The ramifications to freedom are truly staggering. You're assuming that the tech will only be used appropriately. I say that the tech will be used to it's potential, and that the potential is undesirable. You have to consider the extremes, because they have an unfortunate tendancy to become the norm.
The obvious answer is that guns are illegal in the UK, so there are few gun-related incidents. It just doesn't solve the problem of violent crime; it just shifts it from one deadly weapon to another. It also means people have less of a way to defend themselves against criminals and the government. If the overall violent crime rate went down (and stayed down) through banning guns, then you have something to talk about. I don't know if that is the case.
Some of those nasty places in the US are a whole lot worse than most anywhere in England. Not as bad as the OP numbers would require, of course. Then again, I don't live that far away from a city, and I don't hear of gun fatality. Where I grew up, most people had a rifle and/or shotgun. In the twenty years I lived in that area, there wasn't one gun related crime, let alone fatality. The only murder was someone that was killed by crazy guy repeatedly stabbing them, and that was a few towns over.
Every country has had slavery. If you want to say something bad about the US' version of slavery, at least mention how the US was the only western country that rid itself of slavery through violence. I believe it is also the only one to remove slavery as a propoganda and destabilisation move instead of a moral shift.
First, very small amounts of the US have higher rates for theft *OR* violent crime than England. Those places also have a significantly higher population density than London.
Second, most places in the US with very high proliferation of firearms have much lower crime rates than England.
Third, the US was founded on having freedom. England was founded on doing what the royal family tells you to do. That doesn't make you Brits see an advantage, it makes you ignore the problems and believe the disadvantages of your way are positives.
I'd rather have my car stolen than to be shot in the head, too. However, England just replaced getting shot with getting stabbed or hit with a blunt object. Not less crime, just less gun crime. When there are no guns, criminals just use something else.
Give the whole set of statistics. How many assaults are there? How many assaults with a deadly weapon? Are you numbers convictions, or incidents? Are your numbers incidents per population, or total for the country? There are a lot more people in the US than Canada and England, combined.
In places in the US with very lenient gun control, violent crime tends to be extremely low. There is even one place where you are required by law to own a gun; they don't have violent crime.
Gun control is about punishing people for a crime they haven't committed.
Being under 24/7 surveillance means you no longer have privacy. You become tracked in all of your travels, all of your associations, all of your purchases. All of your patterns outside the house are now known. The government has an immediate and fairly accurate profile of all citizens. You commit a crime, no matter how minor or how ridiculous, and the government knows. You effectively have police at every streetcorner and every light post, watching, but recording everything they see.
The cop can both make a judgement call and is not able to retain all data observed. In modern government, most laws should not be applied most times. We have far too many of them, and many are created with the promise of "not being strictly enforced". Since we are not likely to throw out all these laws that need to be, you do the next best and have someone with a brain enforcing them.
The cop follows you in the car, and observes you. If you do nothing, the cop does not bother you. If you are being suspicious, the cop runs your plate. It is not a system of continual invasion of privacy, as these ridiculous cameras are.
That's not really true, you're improperly ordering things. In a free society, you have the freedom to kill anyone you want, as an example. However, you aren't free to get away with doing so. You are able to commit the wrong act, but you will be punished for doing so. The idea of preventing the act from occurring is a serious restriction, and much more far reaching than simply preventing murder. It means you live in a police state, where your actions are monitored and controlled.
People are often willing to set cultural and social standards on what is acceptable. We don't think murder or assault is acceptable, so you are punished for exercising your freedom to commit those acts. Government is about providing a framework for mutual protection and fair execution of law, as determined by the social standards. Just because most governments have ended up going too far doesn't mean that it's correct. Many citizens are not happy with their governments in these countries.
You're spot on with the 1984 assessment. Some freedoms are easier to live without than others. However, that doesn't make it acceptable to take the freedom away. Punish the crime, but don't remove the freedom to commit the crime.
Once you start trading freedom for "security" the system has already broken down. You don't have to be an anarchist for this, you could be a classical conservative, for example. That would be the prevailing attitude that lead to the US Constitution.
1) Of the dozen people that I've shown Firefly to, the only person that did not want to watch more of it *right now* was someone that doesn't watch *any* TV. He complained about the music and that it wasn't a strictly action show.
2) It will likely recoup costs before all theaters pull the film. It has less than $3 million to go. That's not counting DVD sales.
3) Fox *did in fact screw it over*. Quit trolling, you have no facts. A cursory check of the airing details shows that they sabatoged the storyline by screwing up the order. Nobody would've liked Babylon5 if they showed all the episodes in a random order, with the pilot after watching a good portion of the first season.
Yeah, that was a disaster. They switched back to BSD, and rethought it. It is currently running an all MS environment, though.
/ case/hotmail/default.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/interopmigration
That link describes how they converted from FreeBSD to a Windows 2000 server environment on IIS5.
I had a three day period where my old w2k3 file server randomly trapped and rebooted. Then it just stopped happened. It was some crash condition in the WHQL ATI driver shipped with Windows. It never happpened before or after those three days.
I *have* had crashes under Windows that resulted from system resource conditions. It's not supposed to be possible, but I guess that isn't completely true.
Aside from that, the most common reason to see a Windows box trashed is now spyware.
That is close to correct English grammar, but is not English spelling. Old English and Middle English are very different from modern English. I know what you're saying, and I think that you know better. We aren't experiencing the evolution of a language, we're experiencing the destruction of a language. People don't know how things are supposed to be spelled, and they don't bother with grammar.
For example, if you take the average person on this site, you'll tend to get passable to good grammer and spelling. Some people are very proper, some don't try, and most make only a few mistakes: a typical distribution.
1337-speak and txtspk are, respectively, ridiculous and a throw-back to Old English. I don't like trying to read Old English, because you almost have to subvocalise it to read it. That everyone spelled different from one another does not make it better.
I've been accused of flamebaiting more than a few times for that view, unfortunately. Then again, I'm heavily opposed to the 16th and 17th amendments and the results of the poor design of the Civil Rights Act, among other things. I supported rejecting the Koyoto Protocol because of how it attempted to give international control over what sovereign countries can do.
Giving ICANN to the UN would give them a potential revenue source. They need to maintain having no revenue. If they are minimally funded, they will continue having no ability to use force. As soon as they got that revenue, we would see them trying to take control of national powers.
I think you're right... there is very little value to an "EU-Net" (or whatever), since much of the content would not be available to those users. How many people would want to go back to MiniTel when everyone else has the Internet. If they tried to do a gateway between the two networks... can you imagine the costs associated? Or people could just keep using the Internet and not bother with "EU-Net".
IPv6 is most important for the number of addresses. People wouldn't have to do NAT gateways any more. You would be able to have everyone be an actual peer again. There are a number of nice, and not nice, things about IPv6, but it would fix a lot of problems. Everything is functional today, though, so there isn't a huge reason to jump into it.
As a body that exists only to help coordinate between countries, that is a reasonable way of doing it. That's why the UN can't be allowed to get involved in such things as the internet. It is something that is used by people, not by countries. As a vehicle to push for a wholly independant body managing something like DNS infrastructure, that's fine. Having anything to do with the actual structure is not.
I'm not trying to argue that the EU shouldn't have a TLD, just that they would get a ccTLD if they became one. Otherwise, they have to petition just like any other group that wants a TLD created. There is the .int TLD that the EU is using now, and there are ccTLDs for each member country. There isn't a .nato, .opec, .nafta, or .un TLD either.
Also, don't assume that I have tremendous faith in the US government. I still maintain that I would rather live in the US than any other country. Rather than leave the US as it's become something that I don't like, I try to fix the problems to put things back the way they're supposed to be. I don't want the US involved in other countries' operations any more than I want the UN doing the same.
I do feel that democracy is better than anything else when it comes to governing bodies. I also feel that if another country's citizens decide on something different, there is nothing wrong with that; I would just disagree with them.
The UN, as far as an avenue for diplomatic discussion, is fine, even necessary. However, when it tries to get into running things and attempting to create what amounts to laws, then I do *not* think it's fine. I also don't think that anything which would allow the UN to have a revenue stream outside of voluntary contribution is fine. As soon as the UN manages to get funding, it will attempt the same sort of power grab as the US Federal did with the income tax amendment.
You mention language, and I agree, english is not the most commonly spoken language. It is of benefit to choosing a character set that everyone can use, or at least a system where you can represent any domain in any character set. Then you could have a kanji domain name, but also have a correlated roman character set version that automatically goes with it. That would be perfectly fine by me.
You do realize that this "split" would mean a completely separate network? If somewhere decided to just start using IPs, and set up routing for it, it would screw up all the routing. They would be disconnected, and whatever is linking them de-peered until they stopped doing it.
IPv6 would make this less of an issue, though, and that's what needs to happen. Keep the governments out of things as much as possible.
A British guy that was working on the US sponsered Internet, using US developed protocols, and almost certainly on US designed hardware. At that time, it might have even been a computer built in the US, by Americans. A combination of American companies and US government made the WWW possible.
However, since DNS is not HTTP/HTML, I don't see what your point is.
Pardon? From a democratic point of view, the UN is the worst thing. You have no elected representation, no review, no say at all. Other countries can make decisions that try to affect change in your country.
In a parliamentary democracy, you *elect* the representatives, and then they argue with each other. In the UN, maybe you elect the person who appoints the ambassador, maybe you have a dictator that appoints the abassador. There is no democracy with the UN.
* You are not an EU citizen. There is no such country. You are a citizen of a country that is currently a member of the EU.
.eu is a country code, and there is no such country, so there is no such ccTLD.
.iq TLD is silly. They had an American that was arrested own it. Assets were seized, the .iq TLD was held. Maybe Iraq shouldn't have sold it to that guy?
*
* Not adding a new TLD is not a restriction in the way that you imply it. They are not censoring, they are not taking something down. ICANN just didn't add the TLD.
* The
* The UN would guarantee no such thing as no restrictions. They would end up doing some mix of the following: completely screwing up DNS (a la most of their other programs), turning it into a tax source, making it a political system instead of a technical one, restricting it, futher encumbering it with IP bullshit.
One of the things they're preaching about it internationalized domain names. This sounds wonderful, except for the part where that means much of the world can't access domains. How would you type in a chinese domain name on a british layout keyboard... or a cyrillic domain, or arabic, etc. I certainly understand the desire to do such things, but there are reasons for the limitation. I suppose we could all re-enable IDN support in our browsers and get that today, though, without the UN mucking anything up.
You have a dangerously high and misled faith in the UN. They are not some kind of perfection; they barely work at all! Countries are governed by their respective governments, which means the UN has no authority. The only reason the UN can do anything is by a country's permission, or through the use of members' force.
Introduce an install options screen? I think you mean that they should put it back in. Also, they could try excluding Outlook Express, MSN Messenger, and the various games, as examples, from the list of "protected operating system files" that get automatically replaced if you manually delete them.
At least you can get back more control of the OS install by using something like nLite, and undoing a bunch of the MS baby options.