5198 bugs is interestingly excately 10% of the number of times I tried picking up girls a bars in 2005....they kept calling med a creep, not a bug, though. *cough* *cough*
I live in Oslo. Anyone want me to go over to their office and ask the boss himself face-to-face? Since I work in an financial newspaper, I can fake that I'm doing a story;-)
Too bad my boss won't approve of that:-/ And too late now anyways he-he. It's 18:20 in Oslo now.
PS: Guess it's a pretty smart move to have a young, attractive female as a Public Relations-person. Nerds will stop asking difficult questions and just droooool (?).
Stå på Opera! Jeg har brukt dere i mange år:-] Og god jul
Seriously, that the US government supports a US company (Microsoft) in a despute in a foreign country, is as much a news story as my grandma getting her daily bath.
In other - just as important news - I woke up this morning and had breakfest.
The americans inventet the internet, so they should controll all of it.
The germans inventet cars, so they should controll all of them.
The chinese inventet fireworks, so they should controll all of it.
The europeans inventet guns, so they should controll all of them.
This is a somewhat strange example, but my point is that invention and funding at early stages are not good reasons for keeping controll at later stages. The net is mostly private now, and an extremely important part of many countries' infrastructure and economy. I'd am an european, and dosn't really need/want controll. But I'd want a backupsystem of root-servers which is elsewhere than in the USA. So that no "mad" american politician can mess up, or turn off, parts of the internet. It's like an analogy to the GPS-system, where the europeans in the end built their own net.
Generally, we say what we mean and we don't disguise it in a bunch of niceties or doublespeak.
Yeah, like the americans did when argumenting for an attack at Iraq. "Directness" of communication has been discussed in the book "Riding the waves of culture", in which it is 1 of 10 culturals "dimensions". As far as I can remember, Europe and USA is much more direct in their way of communication, then most parts of e.g. Asia. (where reading between the lines, and noticing facial expressions are given more attention) Further, I also seem to remember that the nordic countries are the most "direct" of them all. The book is available at amazon, and is one of the best I've read.
Look at how fast ambulances drive. They don't exceed the speed limit. Honestly, where do people get the idea that careening down city streets at 80mph is a smart way to transport people to the hospital?
In norway they do exceed the speed limit. However, as far as I can remember, they do not exceed 120 km/h. Cause that's too dangerous. The maximum speed limit in norway is 100 km/h. The drivers go through a special course learning them how to drive safer at high speeds.
The point is not controll, but securing internet access. Internet has become extremely important for the economic development for many countries, and it is a problem that USA could "turn off the internet" or block certain countries in an emergency or disagreement.
Censoring the internet is already possible through firewalls, like China does it. So it is not about that. It's neither about domains (xxx, com, net, etc.), thats just a little part of it.
By just builing one or two (mirrored) backupsystems that will make it impossible for the US to "turn of the internet", many countries will be satisfied. Because their internet-infrastructure will work nomatter what.(Yes, I know this solution is more expensive, but you get something back: security)
You can't (on a general basis) defend the killing of some people in one area with the fact that other people has been murdered elsewhere in that country. It just leads to even more dead people, which is worse!
This conflict is really about the control of infrastructure. Every country wants control of it's own (important) infrastructure.
I'd like to draw a parallell to the GPS-system. It was developed by the US and shared with the europeans. After some time the GPS became an important part of the europeans' infrastructure. However, since US would not give up controll, or even share it, the europeans was forced to build their own system.
As far as I remember it was feared that the USA would turn the systems off in case of an emergency....and that would've been the excact moment where the europeans would've needed it the most.
Not least of these results is the Strong, Free and Democratic Europe which hates our guts and which would not exist (twice over) were it not for the American desire to remake the world to conform to American values.
Remember who rediscovered America in about 1500? So if it weren't for USA Europe would've had problems? Such argumentation is just plain wrong and irrelevant in this context.
Remember when I said we know the rest of the world isn't a dictatorship? If it weren't for us it'd be either communism or theocracy on the government menu. If it weren't for us the internet would probably be on this day where it was back in the late 80's. Were it not for us, computing in the 21st century would be anything but. Were it not for us, the notion of free speech to BEGIN WITH would have died out in the dying breaths of the Grecian era.
TO BEGIN WITH USA wouldn't have been anything if it wasn't rediscovered by europeans in about year 1500. Clearly you must see that my arguement is true, but not relevant. So are yours. Current knowledge of other nations has nothing to do with who inventet the computer.
Half of Europe can't get away with insulting their government officials on broadcast, whether radio or tv. The other half is to scared to even if they could, when people get shot in the head by police officers for no reason in the very subway you take to work every day; you'd be a little scared too.
But half of Europe CAN insult their government without consequences! You can't defend shortcomings in US-freedom of speech with the shortcopmings of other countries on the same area.
We also know we're the first nation everyone keeps running to wining their asses off about this or that. "There's been a tsunami!" or "They're committing genocide on us!", "There's been an earthquake!", "We need jobs, give us a military base to work on!"
So tsunami-help-efforts are relevant when it comes to the assesing the knowledge in the american people? Don't think so.
And when it comes to your comments about banning Nazis, I'd like to see the al-quaida be allowed to set up offices downtown New York.
A very good post, which I agree about. However, since I want UN control over DNS, I feel that I must "arrest" you on the motives behind people who prefer UN. I simply prefer UN because it's the biggest international institution we have, and consequently the smalest risk for the system to be abused. I don't want to force anyone to anything when it comes to the internet (not counting criminal acts, spam etc.) and I highly doubt that the UN under any circumstances wants to force other countries to anything they don't want to, when it comes to DNS.
Note: This DNS-despute has a parallell when it comes to GPS-systems, and europes efforts to build their own satelite-position system.
The internet has become extremely valuable for hundred of thousands of businesses and hundred millions of people. The internet has become too important for one country alone to control a crucial part of it.
What happens if US suddenly decided to cut/block all requests from e.g. Iran? A triggerhappy nation as USA may use the internet against it's enemies. That the system so far hasn't been abused, is no garantee what-so-ever for any future conflicts. Seen from another angle: If the US are never to abuse the system, what's the harm in letting the UN take over control?
I have no doubt about the UN operating just as efficient as the current system.
Thanks for the link. I'll try searching for more newssources myself since this is of importance to me. I can say that if this thing is real, it pretty strange that it isnt (wasnt) all over the news...
The point is that USA is going to do research on anthrax, it is going to widen it's knowledge-base about a almost-biological weapon. It's like Iran is opening up nuclear test-reactors, but not researching into nuclear weapons (only non-weaponised knowledge.).
But if Iran then suddenly would change their minds, they would know so much that a weaponising of their nuclear-knowledge would be pretty fast.
If the antrax is going to be used in order to defend against anthrax-attacks, then USA should state that, so other countries would\could understand better. Let there be openness.
Thanks for the link. I see the pictures of the truck, but since the source is CIA, I really need other sources in order to confirm that it's real and not something the CIA has fabricated. If the truck they "found" is what Powell talked about, why not let the international press see it? And let them take highresolution photos and have experts look at it in order to verify it's "realness"? Just a thought...
What? Normal? I can't remember seeing a single gun or armed guard with other things than pistols during my holidays in europe. In my homeland Norway the police doesn't normally even carry guns! But ironically, just a few blocks from here where the Americans embassy is located, there are Norwegian policeofficers that carry light machineguns (MP5)...
I havnt followed every aspect of the Iraq-war, but as far as I can tell, there never were any trucks like those discribed by powell to the U.N. If you have a source the confirms the excistanse of those trucks, I'd like to see it.
The images Powell showed were computergenerated, and not real. If there were any satelite-pictures, I'd sure like to know how the US could know what was inside them from 300 km up in the air.
It is not strange at all that Powell now says that he is ashamed for his speech to the UN.
Slashdot Mirror
5198 bugs is interestingly excately 10% of the number of times I tried picking up girls a bars in 2005. ...they kept calling med a creep, not a bug, though. *cough* *cough*
I can't help it. This slashdot-story seems dangerously near a commercial for MAKE Magazine. How did it slip through?
I live in Oslo. Anyone want me to go over to their office and ask the boss himself face-to-face? Since I work in an financial newspaper, I can fake that I'm doing a story ;-)
:-/ And too late now anyways he-he. It's 18:20 in Oslo now.
:-] Og god jul
Too bad my boss won't approve of that
PS: Guess it's a pretty smart move to have a young, attractive female as a Public Relations-person. Nerds will stop asking difficult questions and just droooool (?).
Stå på Opera! Jeg har brukt dere i mange år
Seriously, that the US government supports a US company (Microsoft) in a despute in a foreign country, is as much a news story as my grandma getting her daily bath.
In other - just as important news - I woke up this morning and had breakfest.
The americans inventet the internet, so they should controll all of it.
The germans inventet cars, so they should controll all of them.
The chinese inventet fireworks, so they should controll all of it.
The europeans inventet guns, so they should controll all of them.
This is a somewhat strange example, but my point is that invention and funding at early stages are not good reasons for keeping controll at later stages. The net is mostly private now, and an extremely important part of many countries' infrastructure and economy. I'd am an european, and dosn't really need/want controll. But I'd want a backupsystem of root-servers which is elsewhere than in the USA. So that no "mad" american politician can mess up, or turn off, parts of the internet. It's like an analogy to the GPS-system, where the europeans in the end built their own net.
Generally, we say what we mean and we don't disguise it in a bunch of niceties or doublespeak.
Yeah, like the americans did when argumenting for an attack at Iraq.
"Directness" of communication has been discussed in the book "Riding the waves of culture", in which it is 1 of 10 culturals "dimensions". As far as I can remember, Europe and USA is much more direct in their way of communication, then most parts of e.g. Asia. (where reading between the lines, and noticing facial expressions are given more attention) Further, I also seem to remember that the nordic countries are the most "direct" of them all. The book is available at amazon, and is one of the best I've read.
Look at how fast ambulances drive. They don't exceed the speed limit. Honestly, where do people get the idea that careening down city streets at 80mph is a smart way to transport people to the hospital?
In norway they do exceed the speed limit. However, as far as I can remember, they do not exceed 120 km/h. Cause that's too dangerous. The maximum speed limit in norway is 100 km/h. The drivers go through a special course learning them how to drive safer at high speeds.
The point is not controll, but securing internet access. Internet has become extremely important for the economic development for many countries, and it is a problem that USA could "turn off the internet" or block certain countries in an emergency or disagreement.
Censoring the internet is already possible through firewalls, like China does it. So it is not about that. It's neither about domains (xxx, com, net, etc.), thats just a little part of it.
By just builing one or two (mirrored) backupsystems that will make it impossible for the US to "turn of the internet", many countries will be satisfied. Because their internet-infrastructure will work nomatter what.(Yes, I know this solution is more expensive, but you get something back: security)
That's my opinion anyway.
Cliche, nothing run by the UN ever works. Don't think so.
free speech doesn't mean you get to escape the consequences of your speech. It only means that you get to say it in the first place.
What an idiotic statement. Try thinking about it for a few minutes, and you'll understand.
You can't (on a general basis) defend the killing of some people in one area with the fact that other people has been murdered elsewhere in that country. It just leads to even more dead people, which is worse!
This conflict is really about the control of infrastructure. Every country wants control of it's own (important) infrastructure.
...and that would've been the excact moment where the europeans would've needed it the most.
I'd like to draw a parallell to the GPS-system. It was developed by the US and shared with the europeans. After some time the GPS became an important part of the europeans' infrastructure. However, since US would not give up controll, or even share it, the europeans was forced to build their own system.
As far as I remember it was feared that the USA would turn the systems off in case of an emergency.
Not least of these results is the Strong, Free and Democratic Europe which hates our guts and which would not exist (twice over) were it not for the American desire to remake the world to conform to American values.
Remember who rediscovered America in about 1500? So if it weren't for USA Europe would've had problems? Such argumentation is just plain wrong and irrelevant in this context.
Remember when I said we know the rest of the world isn't a dictatorship? If it weren't for us it'd be either communism or theocracy on the government menu. If it weren't for us the internet would probably be on this day where it was back in the late 80's. Were it not for us, computing in the 21st century would be anything but. Were it not for us, the notion of free speech to BEGIN WITH would have died out in the dying breaths of the Grecian era.
TO BEGIN WITH USA wouldn't have been anything if it wasn't rediscovered by europeans in about year 1500. Clearly you must see that my arguement is true, but not relevant. So are yours. Current knowledge of other nations has nothing to do with who inventet the computer.
Half of Europe can't get away with insulting their government officials on broadcast, whether radio or tv. The other half is to scared to even if they could, when people get shot in the head by police officers for no reason in the very subway you take to work every day; you'd be a little scared too.
But half of Europe CAN insult their government without consequences! You can't defend shortcomings in US-freedom of speech with the shortcopmings of other countries on the same area.
We also know we're the first nation everyone keeps running to wining their asses off about this or that. "There's been a tsunami!" or "They're committing genocide on us!", "There's been an earthquake!", "We need jobs, give us a military base to work on!"
So tsunami-help-efforts are relevant when it comes to the assesing the knowledge in the american people? Don't think so.
And when it comes to your comments about banning Nazis, I'd like to see the al-quaida be allowed to set up offices downtown New York.
A very good post, which I agree about. However, since I want UN control over DNS, I feel that I must "arrest" you on the motives behind people who prefer UN. I simply prefer UN because it's the biggest international institution we have, and consequently the smalest risk for the system to be abused. I don't want to force anyone to anything when it comes to the internet (not counting criminal acts, spam etc.) and I highly doubt that the UN under any circumstances wants to force other countries to anything they don't want to, when it comes to DNS. Note: This DNS-despute has a parallell when it comes to GPS-systems, and europes efforts to build their own satelite-position system.
>Because it is working, and is not being abused.
The internet has become extremely valuable for hundred of thousands of businesses and hundred millions of people. The internet has become too important for one country alone to control a crucial part of it.
What happens if US suddenly decided to cut/block all requests from e.g. Iran? A triggerhappy nation as USA may use the internet against it's enemies.
That the system so far hasn't been abused, is no garantee what-so-ever for any future conflicts. Seen from another angle: If the US are never to abuse the system, what's the harm in letting the UN take over control?
I have no doubt about the UN operating just as efficient as the current system.
Thanks for the link. I'll try searching for more newssources myself since this is of importance to me. I can say that if this thing is real, it pretty strange that it isnt (wasnt) all over the news...
Yes, so why is this project all so secret then? Couldn't the US just inform us that the purchase is for defense? No, it needs to be ssooooo secret.
The point is that USA is going to do research on anthrax, it is going to widen it's knowledge-base about a almost-biological weapon. It's like Iran is opening up nuclear test-reactors, but not researching into nuclear weapons (only non-weaponised knowledge.).
But if Iran then suddenly would change their minds, they would know so much that a weaponising of their nuclear-knowledge would be pretty fast.
If the antrax is going to be used in order to defend against anthrax-attacks, then USA should state that, so other countries would\could understand better. Let there be openness.
Thanks for the link. I see the pictures of the truck, but since the source is CIA, I really need other sources in order to confirm that it's real and not something the CIA has fabricated. If the truck they "found" is what Powell talked about, why not let the international press see it? And let them take highresolution photos and have experts look at it in order to verify it's "realness"? Just a thought...
What? Normal? I can't remember seeing a single gun or armed guard with other things than pistols during my holidays in europe. In my homeland Norway the police doesn't normally even carry guns! But ironically, just a few blocks from here where the Americans embassy is located, there are Norwegian policeofficers that carry light machineguns (MP5)...
>Bad journalism, coming straight from NewScientist.
I work in a newspaper, and I can asure that this is journalism at it's best: Exposure. Revealing. Critical.
> Any nation with a national history like that has the right to have nuclear weapons in its arsenal.
I hope that you never come into any position of power.
I havnt followed every aspect of the Iraq-war, but as far as I can tell, there never were any trucks like those discribed by powell to the U.N. If you have a source the confirms the excistanse of those trucks, I'd like to see it.
The images Powell showed were computergenerated, and not real. If there were any satelite-pictures, I'd sure like to know how the US could know what was inside them from 300 km up in the air.
It is not strange at all that Powell now says that he is ashamed for his speech to the UN.
>I could go on with a litany of what evidence they DID find, both before and after. But I suspect you'll then claim it was all made up.
Thank you, sir. I'll take that list. Especially important is all the WMD Bush has found after invading Iraq.