Given that your site is host to some very important, secret, inflammatory and otherwise sensitive data, I have some questions about your relationship with the government.
Has the U.S. government ever attempted to outright censor any part of Wikipedia to your knowledge? Have you been contacted and asked to take down incriminating and/or secret information? Has anyone connected with the government tried to find out who has accessed/modified certain pages?
Lastly, I notice that Wikipedia is available in many languages, all across the world. Given that vantage point, could you describe the reaction (if any) of various governments to the possibility of the sum of human knowledge being available to their citizens with just a few keystrokes?
None of this makes sense compared to the simple truth that some people are nasty and have their own agenda; there is no overarching conspiracy across the generations.
Your point is reasonable, sane, mainstream and utterly feasible. However, your second point is absolutely wrong. You are making a common mistake among normal, respectable citizens. You believe that politicians are "nasty" and have a tendency to misbehave. A more realistic POV is that politicians are often "evil" and have a tendency to destroy all who oppose them.
I think Wilkerson's points are well taken. There are certain things that are constant in government, like taxes, war, power, secrets, money and lies. It doesn't really matter which party is in power. Sure, Republicans are a more obvious form of evil, but Democrats are much more subtle and insidious in power. Neither party is good for America. Both parties are corrupt.
Is it really so hard to believe that a group of wealthy businessmen, bankers and military types would conspire to "own" both parties so that no matter which way the public votes, they'll still be in power? That's not conspiracy-theory madness, that's just good business. Just look at the campaign contributions from the last few election cycles. Most major businesses & their leaders would give heavily to both parties. Why would you, as a businessman, want to piss off one of the parties? Doesn't it make sense to own both? Hell, politicians are cheap - you can rent-to-own for extremely low prices, like a couple hundred grand, but you can get back millions, if not billions of dollars in favorable legislation (tax breaks, pork, no-bid contracts, etc.). Let's not dance around the issues like we live in fantasyland: Corporate America owns the U.S. Government. They own both parties, less a few hardcore partisans and maybe a couple idealists.
You speak of crackpots, but I think you're the one dealing in crackpottery if you want me to believe that things are exactly as the (corporate) news media presents them. The truth is much more complex, and much uglier. Our politicians swear allegiance not to our liberties or the Constitution, but to the Almighty Dollar. Do they work together to keep their status/office? Of course: You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
You can call that a conspiracy. I call it business as usual.
Some good documentaries to check out if you want to look into how oil and the military industrial complex fits into all of this:
This is what is truly damaging - those who should be helping the fight instead damage it by acting like crackpots. How do you expect to effect any change if unable to convince others?
Why should the truth be convenient or rational? Why does the truth have to fit inside mainstream political discourse? Why should we have to let the politicians frame the debate and define the terms? You're the one who's ruining the discourse by throwing around words like "crackpot" while doing nothing to refute the grandparent's original points. If you want to have a discussion, then by all means, let's. However, you should concentrate more on facts and reality than attacking others' viewpoints just because they don't fit into your narrow reality.
At slashdot, we like to pretend that we're the Geek Mecca, and that we speak for all geeks. This is, of course, bullshit. Geeks are a huge demographic and they cannot be so easily summarized.
That may explain why some people here might be puzzled to notice that geeks are among the most fervent supporters of DRM, copy-protection, spyware and other restrictive technologies. Witness the many gamers who have StarForce installed on their systems. Witness the many iTunes lovers (myself included) who've bought into the DRMed songs Apple offers.
It's sad to realize that we are heading straight into a DRM/copy-protection nightmare, and the worst part is that we're fully aware where we're going. Gamers are leading the way. They seem to be fully content to have anti-copying and anti-cheating software running in the background while they play World of Warcraft or Half-Life. It seems that these companies are using our geek tendencies (must...play...new...game!) against us. Is this the beginning of the end of our freedom on the net?
In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.
Why should the government be able to access Google's privately-held database, which contains sensitive information about millions of users, just so the government can try to defend a poorly written law? I see this as nothing more than a fishing expedition. Lord knows half the searches on google are probably for porn-related stuff, which the government could use damned lies and statistics to "prove" is bad for children. But the government has no right to demand this information.
You know what's really bad for children? A tyrannical government bent on taking away the rights and liberties of its citizens. Will a child born today even taste freedom after they reach age 18? The way things are going, I rather doubt it.
Oh great, here's another transparent attempt to take away more of our rights in the name of protecting our kids from some vague evil. Is anybody actually fooled by this bullshit?
Come on, speak up. Do we really need to trample everybody's rights to save children from porn spam? Has any child actually been harmed by spam? If so, I'd like to know about it, 'cause it sounds like some virulent spam!
And do we really need a database of childrens' email addresses? That sounds like a pot of gold for all the pedophiles out there...
Luckily, bugs are just fine if you happen to run a company that builds voting machines, such as Diebold. And if you think that elections aren't in the same category as air traffic control, I suggest you take a tour of Iraq. Elections are very important for your continued existance upon the earth.
From the Geist blog, is a list of 10 things that Sony has provisionally agreed to do, at least until 2008:
1. No further use of XCP or Media Max
2. Ensure that the DRM will not be installed on users' computers until the user accepts the end-user license agreement
3. Ensure that an uninstaller for the copy-protection software is made readily available to consumers
4. Fully disclose any updates to the copy-protection software
5. Ensure that the EULA accurately discloses the nature and function of the software in plain English
6. Obtain comments about the EULA from an independent oversight person
7. Obtain an expert opinion that the copy-protection software does not create security vulnerabilities
8. Only collect limited personal information necessary to provide enhanced CD functionality
9. Include full disclosures of the copy-protection software on the CD jewel case
10. Fix any software vulnerabilities that may arise from the copy-protection software
Number 3 probably interests me most. Anybody in the know will be able to download the uninstaller at any time and get that filth off their hard drive (or likely: not put it on there to be begin with). But what about those who are not tech-savvy at all?
It seems to me that the main result of copy protection so far has been to punish the honest and control the meek. Smarter, savvier people get around it and are privy to software and music unencumbered by the DRM that works quite well against those foolish enough to uniwittingly install it. So what's the point? Are the DRM-proponents trying to drive a wedge between power users and the techno-illterate? Do they plan to blame the foul side-effects of DRM on the pirates who are not encumbered by it? "We only put DRM on our products because pirates like Joe Blow download it. Blame him!"
I'd bet that 90% of the population doesn't know what the heck DRM is. We'd better be damn sure to educate the masses or the cartels will do it for us - by smearing the savvy.
What will be the next step? Start gathering a clone army or start building the Death Star?
Haven't you been paying attention? The clone army is already being grown as we speak - they're faking the science and concentrating on making the clones obey orders.:-)
Did anybody else have a vision of Bush ordering the first NSA-wiretap and then Cheney laughing maniacally and screaming, "UNLIMITED POWER!!!!!"
Yes, of course the music industry would love to blame Apple for anything that's been going wrong in their business. I'm sure it couldn't have anything to do with the big labels' dwindling music-producing skills. And lord knows it couldn't be that cool new bands are refusing to sign with major labels, and are deciding to go it alone against the RIAA, thus depriving the RIAA of the right to control their music and their future.
Am I the only one who thinks that this sounds absolutely vomit-inducing? Excuse me for not RTFPR (reading the fucking press release), but does anybody who did know if this will in fact be served cold or hot? Either way it sounds like a recipe for some really bad mixed drinks involving rum, vodka and cleaning highly-caffenated vomit off the carpet in the morning.
Of course men are aware the game is an escape from reality, and don't tend to bitch about such things.
I think you're right, but women see it as an escape from reality, too. The difference lays in what each gender wants out of that alternate reality. As I was RTFing woman-written article I finally realize what it is that women want out of games. It's actually quite different then what men demand. Men demand a cool world where you can DO anything, like shoot a policeman, whereas a female is more interested in who they can BE in this world, like a kitten with pink fur and ribbons.
Women are just looking for a different type of game. They're more interested in skinning their cars than racing, in many cases. I'm sure we all know an exception to this rule, but most chicks are going to go for a world like the Sims over Lara Croft every time. Smart companies and smart game creators will hire some female coders and get down to creating a world that your average woman would enjoy, and they'll make big money doing so.
Really? So having a blog automatically makes you ignorant? Because it seems to me that a member of this imaginary Tech World Elite could take up blogging without suddenly becoming ignorant. Perhaps you can explain this amazing logical leap of yours to me. Oh, and better explain it to Mark Russinovich, too.
Other items packaged with the console -- including the power supply, cables, and controllers -- add another $55 to Microsoft's cost, pushing the loss per unit to $126.
I'll make you a deal, Microsoft. If you send me 100 bucks, I won't even buy an Xbox.
I'm not saying that perception isn't a good enough substitute for practical purposes, I'm just saying that perception and reality are two very different things.
Sure, they can be two different things, but how does that help us? Grandparent poster said, "So for all practical purposes reality is perception, and vice versa" and you disagreed and then said the exact same thing, with quibbles. Yes is is a strong word, but I think you guys are arguing in circles.
Let me just add this: In new age circles, the way I've heard it said is "belief creates reality", not "belief is reality." This seems fairer, since humans are responsible for reshaping a large part of our fungible reality. Reality, is not - as you seem to think about it - a static, unchanging thing. Reality is an amorphous, ever-changing network of perceptions and atoms. Yes, there is (?) an objective reality out there, but it might as well be on Mars for all the good it does us. We are trapped in human bodies with their limited perceptual capacities. What are we to do about it? Well, arguing over objective reality vs. perceptual reality seems about as useful as trying to tear a hole into Never-neverland. I think we should recognize our ability to change the present reality (both perceived and absolute) and decide, through a belief in goodness, to make our reality better than it is now. Isn't that what humans have always done? Isn't that how we got here?
My only request is that we rethink some of our assumptions about the reality of the planet. It seems to me that the industrialization of the entire planet is not a sustainable enterprise.
This is probably the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time. Its sheer idiocy prevents me from tackling it thoroughly, but I will give you the short version why. First, who defines "news"? One person's news is another person's trash. Does what Paris Hilton wore today count as news? According to some "journalists", it does. A blogger can easily (and verifiably, with pics) report this "news." This law lets the government define both "news" and "journalist", which is the height of stupidity. The government should protect the free speech rights of all citizens, not just a certain class or profession. This law is clearly in violation of the first amendment.
Second, just to drive the point home about how stupid your statement is: Some journalists ARE bloggers. What about them? Does the fact that they blog make them suddenly cease to be journalists?
Thirdly, many of the so called "journalists" you're thinking of do no actual news-gathering. They sit in their office and come up with opinions and provocative statements that will help sell newspapers/get them on TV as pundits. These people are useless. They don't "provide" any news. They just talk. That's it. I dunno where you got the idea the journalists are a respectable profession. Most of the time they do little more than parrot what the administration has just said. Or they regurgitate a press release about the new products that have been released today. The investigative journalists of old are a dying breed because their work takes actual time and resources. It's so much easier and cheaper to just hire a bunch of partisan hacks. You think NBC or Fox gives a shit about giving you the unvarnished truth? Hell no, they just want ratings. They're corporations - they're here to make money, not improve your life. Get a clue.
Lastly, I must say the only good thing about your above statement is that you inadvertantly exposed just how pre-packaged our "news" is. You make it sound like they go up on Mt. Sinai and returns with the [angelic voices].... NEWS. What a bunch of crap. Any idiot can be a reporter. All you need is a tape recorder and the ability to write. The so called news we receive is tainted from the get-go. The government spins it, then the reporters spin what the government said, and then the pundits and bloggers spin what the reporters reported. The corporate journalists like to feed us the news, but only after they've pre-chewed it for us. They like to say that it's so much easier to digest that way. But maybe they're scared of how we might interpret it if they didn't do it for us.
My God, man. Bloggers are the only true journalists left! They're a form of meta-journalist. (Have you heard the phrase, "Who will police the police?" - well, who will report on the reporters? Bloggers) They're spinning, too, but at least you have more options.
"We have no intention to regulate the internet," said Commissioner Reding, reassuring the US that the EU was not proposing setting up a new global body.
This is fine. I have no objection to this, but the last time this story was up on/. the EU and other UN states were talking about a coup! It sounds like they've backed down from this, and that's a good thing. I'm all in favor of an international forum for discussing internet-related issues. Their earlier statements smacked of "taking" the internet ("Wrestling" control of it, I believe was the phrase/. used). Hopefully, that was all diplomatic bluster to make their current demands seem infinitely more reasonable. It's worked on me so far. But I think this issue bears watching.
You can see the mods it's received below the post here. I started out at +3 got modded flamebait and then it got an interesting mod.
It hasn't been as much of a rollercoaster as this post, though. I saw it at +5, then it went down to 1, and now it's back up to +4. What a mess. This happens when people don't follow the moderation rules that explicitly say we should concentrate on modding people UP, not down. The discussion is richer when everybody gets a voice. I hardly ever mod people down unless they're being downright stupid. What's the point? Most people read at +3 anyway. Oh well....
A DDoS attack could go on indefinitely. Continually changing IPs and concentrating their attacks could provide results. It's happened before, and this was by rogue elements, probably not connected to a major government.
Regardless, I would hope the UN wouldn't stoop that low. But the article frames it as an inevitability. Interesting; I didn't know we were bound by all of their laws. If we could get the resolution over to the Security Council we could easily veto it there. I'm not sure how the UN plans to wrest control from us, but either way, this sounds like the work of idiots.
How does a post that speaks of the UN levying taxes get modded insightful?
Does it really deserve to be modded flamebait, though? I think my post was much more thoughtful than that. I've been seeing a lot of abuses in the moderation system today, mostly by people who disagree with what the poster is saying but can't come up with a decent retort. It is very cowardly, IMO.
As far as taxation goes, welcome to planet earth. All governments eventually turn to taxation if they can. The UN would just love to regulate, control and tax international commerce conducted through the internet. Whether that's "legal" is another matter. But governments have a way of ignoring legality issues when it benefits them.
The UN doesn't have much power, and most that it does have comes from the point of US guns and G7 financial levers.
That's why it's essential we don't let them get their hands on the internet. Their power will triple overnight. Granted, they only seem to be going after the root servers today, but when they find out there is more power elsewhere, they will go after it.
If you want to worry about international "government" taking money from you personally, worry more about international treaty organizations, like trade organizations and such.
Well, I'm not a big fan of the WTO or the World Bank either. Certainly we don't need any more international organizations sticking their fingers in our pies. In fact, I guess you could say I'm not a big fan of government in general. But we've got to work with what we've got. I just don't see the UN being an improvement over US control. What exactly are they promising to improve anyway? They haven't pointed out any flaws in the current system, they haven't said how they will solve any problems and they certainly haven't offered any incentives for the US to relinquish control. Did these guys all fail diplomacy school or something?
More to the point, do you? Hacking is an option. And yes, as 3 or 4 people have pointed out already, the UN could set up alternate root name servers. But did you RTFA? I doubt any of you did. The EU folks weren't talking about forking the internet. They weren't talking about setting up their own root servers. No, they were talking about taking control over those root servers, in what I must say was unusually forceful talk for a bunch of bureaucrats.
From TFA: But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control.
What part of that statement reads to you as "setting up their own root name servers"? Maybe it's just me, but "ultimate control" reads differently to me. Perhaps the authors don't know what they're talking about, but it's the only story we've got. I named this thread "coup" because that's exactly what they were talking about.
From TFA: [Hendon] had just announced a political coup over the running of the internet.
Essentially, that is what this is. We're being hijacked and this could get ugly. What if the US decides not to go along with international consensus? Would the EU and others try to take over the root servers by force (hacking their way in)? Could they actually get away with it?
This is some pretty scary shit. Obviously, the US is currently in the hands of an illegal and diabolical regime, but they haven't really threatened the internet yet. Is this a pre-emptive strike on the EU's part? The Justice Department has announced a crackdown on pornography, but I doubt the EU is to concerned about that. What's going on here? There must be more to this story than squabbling over who controls root servers.
I'm not convinced these bureaucrats even know what they're talking about. Do they really understand how the internet works? Do they realize that DNS servers are not the end-all, be-all of the 'net?
I guess I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of the UN controlling the net. As I mentioned in a previous post about this, it's pretty obvious that the UN will soon look into taxing the internet. No other body could, but the UN is by definition an international body, and they would just love a revenue stream like that. But what about representation? The UN represents governments, not people.
I think dark times are ahead for the internet. The last thing we need is a bunch of know-nothing bureaucrats making stupid rules and standards for a communication medium that has thrived without them.
Remember this recent/. story? Well, there have been recent developments. Sony pulled the band member's post from the message board (man, you really sign away everything when you sign to a major label - even the right to express yourself, it seems). Then Sony had the embarrassment of doing a recall for the CD because some versions weren't allowing any copying. Now they're telling people how to get around the DRM after censoring the band's instructions for getting around it? Talk about flailing around in the dark.
Personally, I'm glad Apple hasn't shared their FairPlay DRM scheme with the rest of the industry. It shows the RIAA what's like to be on the wrong side of a closed system. Now they know how we feel when we can't rip our songs to MP3s.
I agree that the internet has become a worldwide resource, but giving the keys to the kingdom to the UN is dangerous and stupid. For one thing, let's have a comparison between InternetSpeed and UNspeed. Hmm... If the UN were in charge from the beginning we probably wouldn't even have DNS yet! It'd be a bunch of ad-hoc shit, strapped together with string, bubblegum and token ring.
Secondly, this is an obvious prelude to taxation of the internet. Currently, the US can't demand taxes for e-commerce (mostly because Congress has a moratorium in place), leaving the issue up to the states. And of course, how can you tax a transaction that takes place between a seller in Ghana and a buyer in Hong Kong? Right now, you can't, but guess what! If you give control over the internet (or at least ICANN and DNS to start with; they'll demand more control later) to the UN they will have more control than they've ever had before. Up until today the UN has never been about control; it's been a place where countries can come to whine to each other and make occasional diplomatic concessions. But the UN doesn't control jack squat. If we gave them the internet they would actually become a world government rather than the Pointless Bickering Group they are currently.
I'm not one of those "OMG! NewWorldOrder! I hope the rapture is soon!!!11!!!one" dorks, but the idea of the UN controlling the internet does not sit well with me. Yet, it is inevitable. I just hope we can delay it as long as possible. I will miss the Wild West feel of the 'net. And I don't look forward to paying the UN tax.
And this brings up another problem: Taxation without representation. If I'm paying the UN's bills, I expect to have a direct say in how things are run (not this bullshit where the president appoints somebody - Bolton represents the Bush administration, not the American people). Right now the UN represents nations, not people. There had better be a new governing council (a parliament of regular citizens throughout the world?) set up before we even think about handing over the internet. Heck, we can run the elections and even hold some of the meetings over the internet if that helps, but there is no excuse for the UN not to consult the citizens of earth. How can they assume that the governments out there actual represent the people when the people didn't even elect many of the regimes currently in power? Yet, these very same countries - like China - currently agitating for control of the internet would fight my proposal for a Citizen UN to the last nail. What rank hypocrisy. What bullshit. This isn't about freedom, or democracy, or "playing fair." It's about one thing, and one thing only: CONTROL.
So, fine; you want control of the internet, UN? Well then we the people of earth want control over you. You open up to democracy and freedom and create a new council of regular folk, elected by their peers, and then we can transition control of the DNS servers to the UN. The internet is the best thing to happen to Democracy in the last 100 years (if not more) and I think it would a collosal mistake to hand it over to an institutional as slow, backwards and useless as the UN without making sure we can guide the internet into a new age of freedom for all of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Has the U.S. government ever attempted to outright censor any part of Wikipedia to your knowledge? Have you been contacted and asked to take down incriminating and/or secret information? Has anyone connected with the government tried to find out who has accessed/modified certain pages?
Lastly, I notice that Wikipedia is available in many languages, all across the world. Given that vantage point, could you describe the reaction (if any) of various governments to the possibility of the sum of human knowledge being available to their citizens with just a few keystrokes?
Thanks for the great resource!
Your point is reasonable, sane, mainstream and utterly feasible. However, your second point is absolutely wrong. You are making a common mistake among normal, respectable citizens. You believe that politicians are "nasty" and have a tendency to misbehave. A more realistic POV is that politicians are often "evil" and have a tendency to destroy all who oppose them.
I think Wilkerson's points are well taken. There are certain things that are constant in government, like taxes, war, power, secrets, money and lies. It doesn't really matter which party is in power. Sure, Republicans are a more obvious form of evil, but Democrats are much more subtle and insidious in power. Neither party is good for America. Both parties are corrupt.
Is it really so hard to believe that a group of wealthy businessmen, bankers and military types would conspire to "own" both parties so that no matter which way the public votes, they'll still be in power? That's not conspiracy-theory madness, that's just good business. Just look at the campaign contributions from the last few election cycles. Most major businesses & their leaders would give heavily to both parties. Why would you, as a businessman, want to piss off one of the parties? Doesn't it make sense to own both? Hell, politicians are cheap - you can rent-to-own for extremely low prices, like a couple hundred grand, but you can get back millions, if not billions of dollars in favorable legislation (tax breaks, pork, no-bid contracts, etc.). Let's not dance around the issues like we live in fantasyland: Corporate America owns the U.S. Government. They own both parties, less a few hardcore partisans and maybe a couple idealists.
You speak of crackpots, but I think you're the one dealing in crackpottery if you want me to believe that things are exactly as the (corporate) news media presents them. The truth is much more complex, and much uglier. Our politicians swear allegiance not to our liberties or the Constitution, but to the Almighty Dollar. Do they work together to keep their status/office? Of course: You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
You can call that a conspiracy. I call it business as usual.
Some good documentaries to check out if you want to look into how oil and the military industrial complex fits into all of this:
Why We Fight
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear
This is what is truly damaging - those who should be helping the fight instead damage it by acting like crackpots. How do you expect to effect any change if unable to convince others?
Why should the truth be convenient or rational? Why does the truth have to fit inside mainstream political discourse? Why should we have to let the politicians frame the debate and define the terms? You're the one who's ruining the discourse by throwing around words like "crackpot" while doing nothing to refute the grandparent's original points. If you want to have a discussion, then by all means, let's. However, you should concentrate more on facts and reality than attacking others' viewpoints just because they don't fit into your narrow reality.
Man, I think I've been on a date with that WASP. I woke up the next morning with no money, a splitting headache and size seven poopshoot.
That may explain why some people here might be puzzled to notice that geeks are among the most fervent supporters of DRM, copy-protection, spyware and other restrictive technologies. Witness the many gamers who have StarForce installed on their systems. Witness the many iTunes lovers (myself included) who've bought into the DRMed songs Apple offers.
It's sad to realize that we are heading straight into a DRM/copy-protection nightmare, and the worst part is that we're fully aware where we're going. Gamers are leading the way. They seem to be fully content to have anti-copying and anti-cheating software running in the background while they play World of Warcraft or Half-Life. It seems that these companies are using our geek tendencies (must...play...new...game!) against us. Is this the beginning of the end of our freedom on the net?
In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.
Why should the government be able to access Google's privately-held database, which contains sensitive information about millions of users, just so the government can try to defend a poorly written law? I see this as nothing more than a fishing expedition. Lord knows half the searches on google are probably for porn-related stuff, which the government could use damned lies and statistics to "prove" is bad for children. But the government has no right to demand this information.
You know what's really bad for children? A tyrannical government bent on taking away the rights and liberties of its citizens. Will a child born today even taste freedom after they reach age 18? The way things are going, I rather doubt it.
I hope Google fights this all the way and wins.
Come on, speak up. Do we really need to trample everybody's rights to save children from porn spam? Has any child actually been harmed by spam? If so, I'd like to know about it, 'cause it sounds like some virulent spam!
And do we really need a database of childrens' email addresses? That sounds like a pot of gold for all the pedophiles out there...
Luckily, bugs are just fine if you happen to run a company that builds voting machines, such as Diebold. And if you think that elections aren't in the same category as air traffic control, I suggest you take a tour of Iraq. Elections are very important for your continued existance upon the earth.
Number 3 probably interests me most. Anybody in the know will be able to download the uninstaller at any time and get that filth off their hard drive (or likely: not put it on there to be begin with). But what about those who are not tech-savvy at all?
It seems to me that the main result of copy protection so far has been to punish the honest and control the meek. Smarter, savvier people get around it and are privy to software and music unencumbered by the DRM that works quite well against those foolish enough to uniwittingly install it. So what's the point? Are the DRM-proponents trying to drive a wedge between power users and the techno-illterate? Do they plan to blame the foul side-effects of DRM on the pirates who are not encumbered by it? "We only put DRM on our products because pirates like Joe Blow download it. Blame him!"
I'd bet that 90% of the population doesn't know what the heck DRM is. We'd better be damn sure to educate the masses or the cartels will do it for us - by smearing the savvy.
Haven't you been paying attention? The clone army is already being grown as we speak - they're faking the science and concentrating on making the clones obey orders. :-)
Did anybody else have a vision of Bush ordering the first NSA-wiretap and then Cheney laughing maniacally and screaming, "UNLIMITED POWER!!!!!"
Am I the only one who thinks that this sounds absolutely vomit-inducing? Excuse me for not RTFPR (reading the fucking press release), but does anybody who did know if this will in fact be served cold or hot? Either way it sounds like a recipe for some really bad mixed drinks involving rum, vodka and cleaning highly-caffenated vomit off the carpet in the morning.
I think you're right, but women see it as an escape from reality, too. The difference lays in what each gender wants out of that alternate reality. As I was RTFing woman-written article I finally realize what it is that women want out of games. It's actually quite different then what men demand. Men demand a cool world where you can DO anything, like shoot a policeman, whereas a female is more interested in who they can BE in this world, like a kitten with pink fur and ribbons.
Women are just looking for a different type of game. They're more interested in skinning their cars than racing, in many cases. I'm sure we all know an exception to this rule, but most chicks are going to go for a world like the Sims over Lara Croft every time. Smart companies and smart game creators will hire some female coders and get down to creating a world that your average woman would enjoy, and they'll make big money doing so.
Really? So having a blog automatically makes you ignorant? Because it seems to me that a member of this imaginary Tech World Elite could take up blogging without suddenly becoming ignorant. Perhaps you can explain this amazing logical leap of yours to me. Oh, and better explain it to Mark Russinovich, too.
Dumbass.
I'll make you a deal, Microsoft. If you send me 100 bucks, I won't even buy an Xbox.
Sure, they can be two different things, but how does that help us? Grandparent poster said, "So for all practical purposes reality is perception, and vice versa" and you disagreed and then said the exact same thing, with quibbles. Yes is is a strong word, but I think you guys are arguing in circles.
Let me just add this: In new age circles, the way I've heard it said is "belief creates reality", not "belief is reality." This seems fairer, since humans are responsible for reshaping a large part of our fungible reality. Reality, is not - as you seem to think about it - a static, unchanging thing. Reality is an amorphous, ever-changing network of perceptions and atoms. Yes, there is (?) an objective reality out there, but it might as well be on Mars for all the good it does us. We are trapped in human bodies with their limited perceptual capacities. What are we to do about it? Well, arguing over objective reality vs. perceptual reality seems about as useful as trying to tear a hole into Never-neverland. I think we should recognize our ability to change the present reality (both perceived and absolute) and decide, through a belief in goodness, to make our reality better than it is now. Isn't that what humans have always done? Isn't that how we got here?
My only request is that we rethink some of our assumptions about the reality of the planet. It seems to me that the industrialization of the entire planet is not a sustainable enterprise.
Believe me, if they're going to a Catholic school, the students have a hell of a lot more to worry about than online predators.
This is probably the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time. Its sheer idiocy prevents me from tackling it thoroughly, but I will give you the short version why. First, who defines "news"? One person's news is another person's trash. Does what Paris Hilton wore today count as news? According to some "journalists", it does. A blogger can easily (and verifiably, with pics) report this "news." This law lets the government define both "news" and "journalist", which is the height of stupidity. The government should protect the free speech rights of all citizens, not just a certain class or profession. This law is clearly in violation of the first amendment.
Second, just to drive the point home about how stupid your statement is: Some journalists ARE bloggers. What about them? Does the fact that they blog make them suddenly cease to be journalists?
Thirdly, many of the so called "journalists" you're thinking of do no actual news-gathering. They sit in their office and come up with opinions and provocative statements that will help sell newspapers/get them on TV as pundits. These people are useless. They don't "provide" any news. They just talk. That's it. I dunno where you got the idea the journalists are a respectable profession. Most of the time they do little more than parrot what the administration has just said. Or they regurgitate a press release about the new products that have been released today. The investigative journalists of old are a dying breed because their work takes actual time and resources. It's so much easier and cheaper to just hire a bunch of partisan hacks. You think NBC or Fox gives a shit about giving you the unvarnished truth? Hell no, they just want ratings. They're corporations - they're here to make money, not improve your life. Get a clue.
Lastly, I must say the only good thing about your above statement is that you inadvertantly exposed just how pre-packaged our "news" is. You make it sound like they go up on Mt. Sinai and returns with the [angelic voices].... NEWS. What a bunch of crap. Any idiot can be a reporter. All you need is a tape recorder and the ability to write. The so called news we receive is tainted from the get-go. The government spins it, then the reporters spin what the government said, and then the pundits and bloggers spin what the reporters reported. The corporate journalists like to feed us the news, but only after they've pre-chewed it for us. They like to say that it's so much easier to digest that way. But maybe they're scared of how we might interpret it if they didn't do it for us.
My God, man. Bloggers are the only true journalists left! They're a form of meta-journalist. (Have you heard the phrase, "Who will police the police?" - well, who will report on the reporters? Bloggers) They're spinning, too, but at least you have more options.
This is fine. I have no objection to this, but the last time this story was up on /. the EU and other UN states were talking about a coup! It sounds like they've backed down from this, and that's a good thing. I'm all in favor of an international forum for discussing internet-related issues. Their earlier statements smacked of "taking" the internet ("Wrestling" control of it, I believe was the phrase /. used). Hopefully, that was all diplomatic bluster to make their current demands seem infinitely more reasonable. It's worked on me so far. But I think this issue bears watching.
It hasn't been as much of a rollercoaster as this post, though. I saw it at +5, then it went down to 1, and now it's back up to +4. What a mess. This happens when people don't follow the moderation rules that explicitly say we should concentrate on modding people UP, not down. The discussion is richer when everybody gets a voice. I hardly ever mod people down unless they're being downright stupid. What's the point? Most people read at +3 anyway. Oh well....
Regardless, I would hope the UN wouldn't stoop that low. But the article frames it as an inevitability. Interesting; I didn't know we were bound by all of their laws. If we could get the resolution over to the Security Council we could easily veto it there. I'm not sure how the UN plans to wrest control from us, but either way, this sounds like the work of idiots.
Does it really deserve to be modded flamebait, though? I think my post was much more thoughtful than that. I've been seeing a lot of abuses in the moderation system today, mostly by people who disagree with what the poster is saying but can't come up with a decent retort. It is very cowardly, IMO.
As far as taxation goes, welcome to planet earth. All governments eventually turn to taxation if they can. The UN would just love to regulate, control and tax international commerce conducted through the internet. Whether that's "legal" is another matter. But governments have a way of ignoring legality issues when it benefits them.
The UN doesn't have much power, and most that it does have comes from the point of US guns and G7 financial levers.
That's why it's essential we don't let them get their hands on the internet. Their power will triple overnight. Granted, they only seem to be going after the root servers today, but when they find out there is more power elsewhere, they will go after it.
If you want to worry about international "government" taking money from you personally, worry more about international treaty organizations, like trade organizations and such.
Well, I'm not a big fan of the WTO or the World Bank either. Certainly we don't need any more international organizations sticking their fingers in our pies. In fact, I guess you could say I'm not a big fan of government in general. But we've got to work with what we've got. I just don't see the UN being an improvement over US control. What exactly are they promising to improve anyway? They haven't pointed out any flaws in the current system, they haven't said how they will solve any problems and they certainly haven't offered any incentives for the US to relinquish control. Did these guys all fail diplomacy school or something?
From TFA: But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control.
What part of that statement reads to you as "setting up their own root name servers"? Maybe it's just me, but "ultimate control" reads differently to me. Perhaps the authors don't know what they're talking about, but it's the only story we've got. I named this thread "coup" because that's exactly what they were talking about.
Next time RTFA before you criticize.
Essentially, that is what this is. We're being hijacked and this could get ugly. What if the US decides not to go along with international consensus? Would the EU and others try to take over the root servers by force (hacking their way in)? Could they actually get away with it?
This is some pretty scary shit. Obviously, the US is currently in the hands of an illegal and diabolical regime, but they haven't really threatened the internet yet. Is this a pre-emptive strike on the EU's part? The Justice Department has announced a crackdown on pornography, but I doubt the EU is to concerned about that. What's going on here? There must be more to this story than squabbling over who controls root servers.
I'm not convinced these bureaucrats even know what they're talking about. Do they really understand how the internet works? Do they realize that DNS servers are not the end-all, be-all of the 'net?
I guess I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of the UN controlling the net. As I mentioned in a previous post about this, it's pretty obvious that the UN will soon look into taxing the internet. No other body could, but the UN is by definition an international body, and they would just love a revenue stream like that. But what about representation? The UN represents governments, not people.
I think dark times are ahead for the internet. The last thing we need is a bunch of know-nothing bureaucrats making stupid rules and standards for a communication medium that has thrived without them.
Personally, I'm glad Apple hasn't shared their FairPlay DRM scheme with the rest of the industry. It shows the RIAA what's like to be on the wrong side of a closed system. Now they know how we feel when we can't rip our songs to MP3s.
Secondly, this is an obvious prelude to taxation of the internet. Currently, the US can't demand taxes for e-commerce (mostly because Congress has a moratorium in place), leaving the issue up to the states. And of course, how can you tax a transaction that takes place between a seller in Ghana and a buyer in Hong Kong? Right now, you can't, but guess what! If you give control over the internet (or at least ICANN and DNS to start with; they'll demand more control later) to the UN they will have more control than they've ever had before. Up until today the UN has never been about control; it's been a place where countries can come to whine to each other and make occasional diplomatic concessions. But the UN doesn't control jack squat. If we gave them the internet they would actually become a world government rather than the Pointless Bickering Group they are currently.
I'm not one of those "OMG! NewWorldOrder! I hope the rapture is soon!!!11!!!one" dorks, but the idea of the UN controlling the internet does not sit well with me. Yet, it is inevitable. I just hope we can delay it as long as possible. I will miss the Wild West feel of the 'net. And I don't look forward to paying the UN tax.
And this brings up another problem: Taxation without representation. If I'm paying the UN's bills, I expect to have a direct say in how things are run (not this bullshit where the president appoints somebody - Bolton represents the Bush administration, not the American people). Right now the UN represents nations, not people. There had better be a new governing council (a parliament of regular citizens throughout the world?) set up before we even think about handing over the internet. Heck, we can run the elections and even hold some of the meetings over the internet if that helps, but there is no excuse for the UN not to consult the citizens of earth. How can they assume that the governments out there actual represent the people when the people didn't even elect many of the regimes currently in power? Yet, these very same countries - like China - currently agitating for control of the internet would fight my proposal for a Citizen UN to the last nail. What rank hypocrisy. What bullshit. This isn't about freedom, or democracy, or "playing fair." It's about one thing, and one thing only: CONTROL.
So, fine; you want control of the internet, UN? Well then we the people of earth want control over you. You open up to democracy and freedom and create a new council of regular folk, elected by their peers, and then we can transition control of the DNS servers to the UN. The internet is the best thing to happen to Democracy in the last 100 years (if not more) and I think it would a collosal mistake to hand it over to an institutional as slow, backwards and useless as the UN without making sure we can guide the internet into a new age of freedom for all of the world.