Must be a mistake. The Goa'uld already tried that back in 2002... we used a hyperspace generator to jump the rock around Earth. Worked like a charm too, although it was a bit touch-and-go there for a bit. In any event, Apophis is only a false god. A dead false god.
Only Americans use it nowadays, it has not been used nowhere in Europe for ages to my knowledge.
What about the rest of the planet?
We do? I have been under a general anesthetic several times since the mid-sixties, and have never been given nitrous oxide. Not once, and I don't know anyone that has.
Following you reasoning, no one from Asia should visit Texas, California or Virginia since they were bought from Spain and/or France some time ago with the (early) USA taxpayer money, which in turn was UK asset before the independence...
My reasoning? Did you actually READ my message, as well as the one I was replying to? I was trying to point out that being snippy about keeping foreigners from using publicly available Internet resources is just stupid no matter where you hail from. I guess you didn't recognize my rather sarcastic tone and took me literally.
This seems a lot like the time that Accuweather and friends tried to have Santorum, their pet senator, ban the NOAA from providing the public with the weather data they paid for.
That happens on a daily basis as corporations large and small try to buy favors in Congress, and ideally laws the benefit their specific industries. Really, this should be considered treasonous behavior, on both the part of the companies that pay the lobbyists, and the Congresspersons that sell out the people for a few thousand in campaign contributions.
Though, to be fair, the News Corporation is at least an order of magnitude more evil.
Which comment I'm sure made you feel better, but missed the point of the discussion. The OP was commenting that the BBC should restrict access to outside viewers simply because they haven't paid for it. I was pointing out that the U.S., at least, has offered taxpayer-funded services to the other countries as well, without requiring payment. Actually, quite a few billions of U.S. dollars worth of such services, and frankly some of us are tired of footing the bill, especially when people like you cop an attitude. So I'm sorry if I dinged your ego a little (well, no... honestly I'm not) but that was neither my intent, nor is your inferiority complex relevant to this discussion.
However, since you brought it up... get back to me when Galileo is fully operational, and is truly a replacement for GPS. From your linked article, On 30 November 2007 the 27 EU transportation ministers involved reached an agreement that it should be operational by 2013.
We came up with the idea and got it working decades ago, but so far the EU's effort is still a work-in-progress. You're not there yet, so for now you're still dependent upon our precious GPS. Matter of fact, you were only too happy to take advantage of it and I don't recall the EU ever offering to offset the costs.
Personally, I think it's a great idea to have alternatives to GPS: that's a lot of eggs in one basket and civilization is becoming more and more dependent upon such technology. I might add that Russia's GLONASS system looks promising, but they too have a long way to go.
I agree that having everyone dependent upon a system owned by a single country is not the best for everyone. But so far, we're the only ones who have pumped enough billions into it to do the job properly, and yes, we let you use it. For free.
So I think a "thank you" is in order, not piss and vinegar.
But as someone from the EU, I don't trust the USA to always play fair and would like to see the capacity to run a separate DNS if necessary.
Oh, I understand that. But if DNS is not global in nature, then cannot serve the purpose for which it was intended, and which it has performed so well since the Internet first went public. As soon as DNS becomes subject to the whims and politics of individual national governments, its utility will be drastically diminished.
As I pointed out, there is no easy solution... you have to look at the big picture. Who else would run it as well as we have to date, for everyone's benefit, even that of our enemies? The answer is: really, nobody at this point. No, the U.N. is not an option: too much influence from nations that would cheerfully abuse any access to the root servers they obtained, simply because they would lose nothing by doing so.
Because the internet is just as vital to our business.
And that's largely why it's unlikely the U.S. Federal Government would do anything to adversely affect DNS operation. Besides, contrary to apparently popular belief, the Feds don't run the roots. A private entity called Verisign Corporation does and they, actually, are the bigger risk. Those guys are pricks, and frankly you'd be better off if the U.S. Federal Government was directly in charge of the roots.
Your business (read: economic interests) are closely intertwined with ours. No U.S. politician can ignore that reality. We could hardly do anything to severely damage other major economies without severely impacting our own. What percentage would there be in it for us to fuck up anyone else's Internet? I mean, really? Let alone the fact that the Internet itself could not care about the Domain Name System: packet routing is not dependent upon DNS at any level, and in fact DNS was a service developed to make accessing remote IPs more human-friendly. I mean, 74.125.12.100 is a lot harder to remember than google.com. Ideally, any mission-critical systems would use IP addresses to access each other, and not depend upon name resolution.
Furthermore, as more and more of U.S. manufacturing is either exported overseas, or directly involves foreign businesses, the odds of our ever being able to risk screwing with the DNS without damaging ourselves in the process is rapidly approaching zero. Well, okay, I suppose in wartime anything is possible, but odds are if that happens nations will be disconnecting themselves from the global network anyway, just to prevent possible attacks.
You may put News Corp. in a different category than The Onion, but that is your problem.
I think you just hit the nail on the head. Fox News isn't all fabrication, but there's really no way to tell what is and isn't at any given moment, unless you verify it against an organization with a better class of reporting (the BBC, for example.) It really does bother me, as an American, that so much my country's press has been taken over by the likes of Murdoch. Our Founders would be more than a little disturbed by recent events, I'm sure. Spinning in their graves and all that. People don't understand why I refuse to watch any of the major news outlets: I don't like being lied to when I can't tell when I'm being lied to.
Some folks don't seem bothered by that: I guess as long as they can hear what they want to hear, they're okay with it. It's easier that way, I suppose.
NOAA forecasts are not available to non-U.S. citizens (or if they are available, have no value way over in Europe).
A. That's just not true, and B. do you have any idea how much information on, well, pretty much everything the U.S. government gives away for free, whether you live here or not? Bash America if you like, but get your goddamn facts straight. Oh, and while you're at it turn off your GPS receiver: that system was paid for by U.S. taxpayers and you really shouldn't be using it, you know. Wouldn't be right and all, since you didn't pay a single Euro for it.
I know a lot of American who only get their news from there because they regard the American press as either too liberal or too conservative. (Or more often than not, too sensationalistic or too "fluffy.")
As an American myself, I'd say that much of our news is all of the above, but I could accept that. The problem is, it's more often inaccurate, misleading or simply outright fabrication. Note that the press in this country was given special consideration under our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, so that we could make informed choices about who we select as our leaders. Unfortunately for us, the press has largely abrogated that responsibility in favor of crass money-grubbing and political pandering. And that has gone hand-in-hand with the rapid expansion of our various governmental bodies and ongoing loss of civil liberties.
Had the free press done its job as the Founders intended it to do, we wouldn't be having this discussion. At least we still can (have discussions like this, I mean) but it's by no means guaranteed that that will always be so.
In any event, I do hit the BBC for a lot of information... mostly for impartial reporting on the political affairs of my own country. That pisses me off as well. Oh, not at the BBC, but at the news organizations in the U.S. who seem to believe that it is now their job to provide PR for the big boys, and in the process mold public opinion. I do not want my opinion molded, and I think that any reporter who fraudulently expresses his personal opinions and biases as fact without disclaimer should be given free room and board by the State for a while.
At this point, I'm inclined to think that if the press isn't going to do their jobs right, they shouldn't be given any special privileges. They're no longer informing us... they're disinforming us and yes, Mr. Murdoch, you're at the forefront of that particular movement. Furthermore, any claims you have about the quality and impartiality of BBC reporting sound like they are: more lies. The BBC does a fine job and most of its counterparts in your organization could learn a few things from them. The Brits already pay for the privilege of having the BBC so it's hardly free, and in any event, they're better off without having you anywhere in the picture.
A split of the DNS would be troublesome, but may be necessary if the US take too many liberties with the original.
So far we really haven't, nor are we ever likely to. Furthermore, do you think that Russia, or China, or the EU (or, God forbid, the UN) would do any better? Do you think they'd maintain our essentially hands-off approach? Or would they be irresistibly drawn towards fucking with it for their own benefit? You should understand that we trade with pretty much every country on the planet, the Internet is vital to that trade, and it really is not in our best interests to "take too many liberties."
And let me point out that you must not have much understanding of the distributed nature of the Domain Name System. There are (last I heard) thirteen root servers, not all of which are in the U.S. and millions of secondary name servers. The Internet isn't going to go offline suddenly no matter what we do. All we're talking about here is being able to have ISPs disconnect specific systems from the Internet in case they're under some from of remote attack, and DNS is not particularly crucial to that.
Now, that said, I think it's a spectacularly stupid idea for critical infrastructure to even be on the public Internet. I know it's convenient, but it's just fucking stupid, and in many cases there's absolutely no need for it. It's just easy to do, so people do it, and being people who are often not networking professionals, they screw it up from a security perspective. If we managed security for facilities such as power plants, water treatment centers and so forth correctly, there'd probably be no need for this law. What the government is essentially saying here is that it does not trust the private sector to properly manage these facilities. And in that, the Feds are absolutely correct. It's unlikely their proposed solution will make any difference in a worst-case scenario, but the issue is real.
Two party politics just give me that warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Rather reminiscent of severe radiation sickness.
I think people who see things this way should be driven into the middle of some field, dress up in blue and red, be given muskets and forced to fight each other to the death. Maybe that will solve some problems.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But either way, it would make for some great Reality TV.
So if we slashdotted the White House, could we cause them to declare an emergency and shutdown the Whitehouse? How long could we maintain such an emergency?
As an aside, if you really think Gitmo is the only establishment of it's kind operated by the United States, I have a CIA plane loaded full of cocaine and cash I'd like to sell you.
Yes, the American prison system is getting pretty nasty lately.
Say we get in a war with China and they attack our power stations in the US via a massive cyber attack
We're already in a war with China, most of us just don't want to admit it. Well, technically we're at war with ourselves, and China is just exploiting our weaknesses.
On another note, I had some jackass from a Chinese IP trying to crack my FTP server all night. Just kept trying to log in as "Administrator" over and over and over. Not that it mattered: I routinely disable any accounts named "Administrator" or "Admin" or anything obvious like that. I ping-flooded the bastard and, wonder of wonders, he quit. Went off to pester someone else, I guess. I get a lot of hits from India as well, interestingly enough, although in neither case do I really know the source country (tracert only tells you so much.)
As long as they aren't disconnecting me from the internet then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me I can't smoke, then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me I can't drink, then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me I can't vote, then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me anything, then fine.
Problem is, with that attitude it's guaranteed that sooner or later they're going to tell you can't do something that isn't fine with you. That's the nature of government, and the "fuck you, Jack, I"m all right" approach just doesn't work in the long run. You see, your rights don't end where mine begin... they're one and the same, and if we don't take care of each other in this regard, we all suffer.
Slashdot Mirror
Stick to English, fucktard.
Listen to Mr. Perfect. You tend to your own knitting.
Do without all the agile scrum diddle doo, and you'll be just fine.
Personally, I find that it works best if you only use Wrigley's Spearmint Scrum.
one more person not doing the actual work who has to be involved, but with less accountability and more power than anyone else in the project.
Kinda like social workers.
Won't matter much if we can divert an asteroid if budget cuts cost us the ability to see it coming.
Deep down, nobody really believes it will ever happen, especially Congress, which has no awareness of consequence anyway.
And are they going to hire Bruce Willis to drive it?
No, Robert Duvall.
Does this plan involve taking all of Britain's CCTV cameras and pointing them towards the sky?
Yes indeed it does, thereby making one giant CCD imager.
Apophis will make a near pass to Earth in 2029.
Must be a mistake. The Goa'uld already tried that back in 2002 ... we used a hyperspace generator to jump the rock around Earth. Worked like a charm too, although it was a bit touch-and-go there for a bit. In any event, Apophis is only a false god. A dead false god.
You sure about that?
Nope. I've been put under for a few different surgeries over the years, and I was told I was given IV anesthetics.
Only Americans use it nowadays, it has not been used nowhere in Europe for ages to my knowledge. What about the rest of the planet?
We do? I have been under a general anesthetic several times since the mid-sixties, and have never been given nitrous oxide. Not once, and I don't know anyone that has.
Well then, Thank You!. I could get lost in a phone booth and GPS has saved my tattered old arse a number of times.
Yeah, me too. I have a wonderful sense of misdirection. And you're welcome.
To whoever modded me troll ... nice job. Try reading past the first line next time.
Following you reasoning, no one from Asia should visit Texas, California or Virginia since they were bought from Spain and/or France some time ago with the (early) USA taxpayer money, which in turn was UK asset before the independence...
My reasoning? Did you actually READ my message, as well as the one I was replying to? I was trying to point out that being snippy about keeping foreigners from using publicly available Internet resources is just stupid no matter where you hail from. I guess you didn't recognize my rather sarcastic tone and took me literally.
Cripes.
This seems a lot like the time that Accuweather and friends tried to have Santorum, their pet senator, ban the NOAA from providing the public with the weather data they paid for.
That happens on a daily basis as corporations large and small try to buy favors in Congress, and ideally laws the benefit their specific industries. Really, this should be considered treasonous behavior, on both the part of the companies that pay the lobbyists, and the Congresspersons that sell out the people for a few thousand in campaign contributions.
Though, to be fair, the News Corporation is at least an order of magnitude more evil.
In magnitude yes, but not in principle.
Don't worry, you can have your precious GPS. We will manage nicely without it, thank you..
Which comment I'm sure made you feel better, but missed the point of the discussion. The OP was commenting that the BBC should restrict access to outside viewers simply because they haven't paid for it. I was pointing out that the U.S., at least, has offered taxpayer-funded services to the other countries as well, without requiring payment. Actually, quite a few billions of U.S. dollars worth of such services, and frankly some of us are tired of footing the bill, especially when people like you cop an attitude. So I'm sorry if I dinged your ego a little (well, no ... honestly I'm not) but that was neither my intent, nor is your inferiority complex relevant to this discussion.
... get back to me when Galileo is fully operational, and is truly a replacement for GPS. From your linked article, On 30 November 2007 the 27 EU transportation ministers involved reached an agreement that it should be operational by 2013.
However, since you brought it up
We came up with the idea and got it working decades ago, but so far the EU's effort is still a work-in-progress. You're not there yet, so for now you're still dependent upon our precious GPS. Matter of fact, you were only too happy to take advantage of it and I don't recall the EU ever offering to offset the costs.
Personally, I think it's a great idea to have alternatives to GPS: that's a lot of eggs in one basket and civilization is becoming more and more dependent upon such technology. I might add that Russia's GLONASS system looks promising, but they too have a long way to go.
I agree that having everyone dependent upon a system owned by a single country is not the best for everyone. But so far, we're the only ones who have pumped enough billions into it to do the job properly, and yes, we let you use it. For free.
So I think a "thank you" is in order, not piss and vinegar.
But as someone from the EU, I don't trust the USA to always play fair and would like to see the capacity to run a separate DNS if necessary.
Oh, I understand that. But if DNS is not global in nature, then cannot serve the purpose for which it was intended, and which it has performed so well since the Internet first went public. As soon as DNS becomes subject to the whims and politics of individual national governments, its utility will be drastically diminished.
... you have to look at the big picture. Who else would run it as well as we have to date, for everyone's benefit, even that of our enemies? The answer is: really, nobody at this point. No, the U.N. is not an option: too much influence from nations that would cheerfully abuse any access to the root servers they obtained, simply because they would lose nothing by doing so.
As I pointed out, there is no easy solution
Because the internet is just as vital to our business.
And that's largely why it's unlikely the U.S. Federal Government would do anything to adversely affect DNS operation. Besides, contrary to apparently popular belief, the Feds don't run the roots. A private entity called Verisign Corporation does and they, actually, are the bigger risk. Those guys are pricks, and frankly you'd be better off if the U.S. Federal Government was directly in charge of the roots.
Your business (read: economic interests) are closely intertwined with ours. No U.S. politician can ignore that reality. We could hardly do anything to severely damage other major economies without severely impacting our own. What percentage would there be in it for us to fuck up anyone else's Internet? I mean, really? Let alone the fact that the Internet itself could not care about the Domain Name System: packet routing is not dependent upon DNS at any level, and in fact DNS was a service developed to make accessing remote IPs more human-friendly. I mean, 74.125.12.100 is a lot harder to remember than google.com. Ideally, any mission-critical systems would use IP addresses to access each other, and not depend upon name resolution.
Furthermore, as more and more of U.S. manufacturing is either exported overseas, or directly involves foreign businesses, the odds of our ever being able to risk screwing with the DNS without damaging ourselves in the process is rapidly approaching zero. Well, okay, I suppose in wartime anything is possible, but odds are if that happens nations will be disconnecting themselves from the global network anyway, just to prevent possible attacks.
You may put News Corp. in a different category than The Onion, but that is your problem.
I think you just hit the nail on the head. Fox News isn't all fabrication, but there's really no way to tell what is and isn't at any given moment, unless you verify it against an organization with a better class of reporting (the BBC, for example.) It really does bother me, as an American, that so much my country's press has been taken over by the likes of Murdoch. Our Founders would be more than a little disturbed by recent events, I'm sure. Spinning in their graves and all that. People don't understand why I refuse to watch any of the major news outlets: I don't like being lied to when I can't tell when I'm being lied to.
Some folks don't seem bothered by that: I guess as long as they can hear what they want to hear, they're okay with it. It's easier that way, I suppose.
NOAA forecasts are not available to non-U.S. citizens (or if they are available, have no value way over in Europe).
A. That's just not true, and B. do you have any idea how much information on, well, pretty much everything the U.S. government gives away for free, whether you live here or not? Bash America if you like, but get your goddamn facts straight. Oh, and while you're at it turn off your GPS receiver: that system was paid for by U.S. taxpayers and you really shouldn't be using it, you know. Wouldn't be right and all, since you didn't pay a single Euro for it.
I know a lot of American who only get their news from there because they regard the American press as either too liberal or too conservative. (Or more often than not, too sensationalistic or too "fluffy.")
As an American myself, I'd say that much of our news is all of the above, but I could accept that. The problem is, it's more often inaccurate, misleading or simply outright fabrication. Note that the press in this country was given special consideration under our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, so that we could make informed choices about who we select as our leaders. Unfortunately for us, the press has largely abrogated that responsibility in favor of crass money-grubbing and political pandering. And that has gone hand-in-hand with the rapid expansion of our various governmental bodies and ongoing loss of civil liberties.
... mostly for impartial reporting on the political affairs of my own country. That pisses me off as well. Oh, not at the BBC, but at the news organizations in the U.S. who seem to believe that it is now their job to provide PR for the big boys, and in the process mold public opinion. I do not want my opinion molded, and I think that any reporter who fraudulently expresses his personal opinions and biases as fact without disclaimer should be given free room and board by the State for a while.
... they're disinforming us and yes, Mr. Murdoch, you're at the forefront of that particular movement. Furthermore, any claims you have about the quality and impartiality of BBC reporting sound like they are: more lies. The BBC does a fine job and most of its counterparts in your organization could learn a few things from them. The Brits already pay for the privilege of having the BBC so it's hardly free, and in any event, they're better off without having you anywhere in the picture.
Had the free press done its job as the Founders intended it to do, we wouldn't be having this discussion. At least we still can (have discussions like this, I mean) but it's by no means guaranteed that that will always be so. In any event, I do hit the BBC for a lot of information
At this point, I'm inclined to think that if the press isn't going to do their jobs right, they shouldn't be given any special privileges. They're no longer informing us
A split of the DNS would be troublesome, but may be necessary if the US take too many liberties with the original.
So far we really haven't, nor are we ever likely to. Furthermore, do you think that Russia, or China, or the EU (or, God forbid, the UN) would do any better? Do you think they'd maintain our essentially hands-off approach? Or would they be irresistibly drawn towards fucking with it for their own benefit? You should understand that we trade with pretty much every country on the planet, the Internet is vital to that trade, and it really is not in our best interests to "take too many liberties."
And let me point out that you must not have much understanding of the distributed nature of the Domain Name System. There are (last I heard) thirteen root servers, not all of which are in the U.S. and millions of secondary name servers. The Internet isn't going to go offline suddenly no matter what we do. All we're talking about here is being able to have ISPs disconnect specific systems from the Internet in case they're under some from of remote attack, and DNS is not particularly crucial to that.
Now, that said, I think it's a spectacularly stupid idea for critical infrastructure to even be on the public Internet. I know it's convenient, but it's just fucking stupid, and in many cases there's absolutely no need for it. It's just easy to do, so people do it, and being people who are often not networking professionals, they screw it up from a security perspective. If we managed security for facilities such as power plants, water treatment centers and so forth correctly, there'd probably be no need for this law. What the government is essentially saying here is that it does not trust the private sector to properly manage these facilities. And in that, the Feds are absolutely correct. It's unlikely their proposed solution will make any difference in a worst-case scenario, but the issue is real.
Two party politics just give me that warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Rather reminiscent of severe radiation sickness.
I think people who see things this way should be driven into the middle of some field, dress up in blue and red, be given muskets and forced to fight each other to the death. Maybe that will solve some problems.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But either way, it would make for some great Reality TV.
So if we slashdotted the White House, could we cause them to declare an emergency and shutdown the Whitehouse? How long could we maintain such an emergency?
How long can we afford to pay our Internet bills?
As an aside, if you really think Gitmo is the only establishment of it's kind operated by the United States, I have a CIA plane loaded full of cocaine and cash I'd like to sell you.
Yes, the American prison system is getting pretty nasty lately.
Say we get in a war with China and they attack our power stations in the US via a massive cyber attack
We're already in a war with China, most of us just don't want to admit it. Well, technically we're at war with ourselves, and China is just exploiting our weaknesses.
On another note, I had some jackass from a Chinese IP trying to crack my FTP server all night. Just kept trying to log in as "Administrator" over and over and over. Not that it mattered: I routinely disable any accounts named "Administrator" or "Admin" or anything obvious like that. I ping-flooded the bastard and, wonder of wonders, he quit. Went off to pester someone else, I guess. I get a lot of hits from India as well, interestingly enough, although in neither case do I really know the source country (tracert only tells you so much.)
It's like a fistful of sand, the harder you squeeze, the more that slips through your fingers.
Actually I believe you misquoted Princess Leia there.
As long as they aren't disconnecting me from the internet then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me I can't smoke, then fine.
... they're one and the same, and if we don't take care of each other in this regard, we all suffer.
As long as they aren't telling me I can't drink, then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me I can't vote, then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me anything, then fine.
Problem is, with that attitude it's guaranteed that sooner or later they're going to tell you can't do something that isn't fine with you. That's the nature of government, and the "fuck you, Jack, I"m all right" approach just doesn't work in the long run. You see, your rights don't end where mine begin