You are absolutely right.
But, if I may guess: it won't be the UN doing it, it will be China (I'm just doing the math: approx. 1/6 th of the world population - that's potential internetusers - are Chineese). And they will just "sync" the DNS register with what they want included (if they feel the need for it), and probably punish anyone in china not using this Chineese DNS register. You can also bet that most companies in the rest of the world will fall in line with this - just ignoring 1/6 of your potential customers just isn't an option.
This is exactly the scenario that the UN is trying to avoid. This is exactly why the UN needs to be backed!
Thank you, this is really really intresting! It's actually exactly how the net is supposed to work; bringing forth information and real peoples accounts, instead of somebodys FUD.
I have yet to hear *good* arguments for not transferring the power to the UN.
Does ANYONE have those?
Ive currently heard (and you will get my comments on the arguments in non-italic) The US doesn't mess with how its run
false: we have the whole mess with the.xxx domain, and not to forget: what's going on with the iraqi domain? Well, since the current owners are in US custody (!??) its in limbo: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/30/iraq_inter net_domain/?
Transferring power will lead to greater Cencorship
Oh, cencorship as in preventing media to display coffins of dead soldiers? Or showing a nipple on tv? Banning Al Jazeera from reporting from iraq? Or pictures from abu ghraib? (where the public - thats us, folks - have the right to know what is actually going on). No, my dear friends - it's time to 'fess up, and admit that there are plenty of countries - participating in the UN, as a matter of fact - that does the whole "Freedom of speech"-thing better than the US.
The UN is corrupt
Arguably the UN has had its share of scandals - it's no suprise since any political body draws the attention of people out for personal gain. This is solved by actively participating, and demanding increased opaquity of how the UN (or any political body - the US for example) is run. I won't even go into the whole Haliburton, Bush AWOL, Saudi connection, Campain Contributions and Florida vote scandals.
Historically the internet came from the US - so it should remain in US control
This one is plain dumb. Just because something is historical, doesn't mean that it neccessarily is good today.
The US runs it better (technically)
Not really. Ever heard of pharming? Im going to do a littel flag-waiving myself, and point out that right now Sweden is on the track to implement DNS-SEC, for examplehttp://www.nic.se/english/nyheter/pr/2005-0 9-14?lang=en
To keep internet democratic, the US should be in control
It IS a issue of democracy. The US has to hand over the power to a international democratic body, any other action is per definition UN-Democratic (no pun intended). I'm sorry, but arguing anything else is just moot. It's the US responsibility to participate and to try to affect the outcome of voting on these issues in the UN. That, my friends, is how democracy is supposed to work.(and I shouldn't have to point out what democracy actually is) I'm scared of that the rest of the world won't put the US intrests first.
Well, should they? Honestly? The rest of the world is not, I repeat NOT, by definition Evil. Remember, North Korea, China (as is the US) are a part of the rest of the world. There are enough good countries to balance out the "bad" ones ("bad" as in the _US sense of the word).
Ok, I'll probably be modded down for this post, but before bringing out the flamethrowers, I'm actually intrested in hearing good arguments for keeping it in US control.
It's a issue of democracy. The US has to hand over the power to a international democratic body, any other action is per definition UN-Democratic (no pun intended). I'm sorry, but arguing anything else is just moot.
I'm sorry, but Cencorship, Control, Taxation, History or technical "we-do-it-best" doesn't affect the above.
It's the US responsibility to participate and to try to affect the outcome of voting on these issues in the UN. That, my friends, is how democracy is supposed to work.
uhm.... care to point me in the direction of "share" in the form of an URL?
Googling for the word "share" provides... less than satisfactory results.;-)
Nope. I never said "US akin to mass murderers targeting civilians". Terror comes in many forms (Abu Girab, for example). And, whatmore, you have just taken the standard US conservative definition of terror and just accepted it. I'm trying to look at it from what actually went down, and not downplaying it.
As for "random politician/preacher", Pat Robertson has *influence*. Both over those who listen, and then some over the current administration (religious right, remeber). This guy has followers. He even run for precidency in -87, so calling him "random" is... maybe underestimating him a little?
Ok, hope this won't be marked up as flamebait. I'm trying to be insightful here, scrutinizing this actual event that marks a point in history were a former presidential candidate with close ties to the administration calls for assasination of another country's head of state, in public, on TV.
... oh, and I almost forgot a crucial point:
If someone said this about the US president, they would be procecuded. But of course, for influential white rich americans suggesting this for someone else, it flyes.
Yes, well, they are also heavily looking into doing more unmanned missions. http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1432901.htm
(don't know if this is a good or bad thing - probably safer for astronauts)
The above post micht be rated funny, but has some scary philosofical undertones...
I've had this theory for som time now which I'm trying to formulate into one single phrase:
"If it can be thought up, there exists at least one person trying to make it happen" - Phil
So, if you look at that phase in deptht it would mean that for everything that the human race has fantisized about doing, somewhere, somehow someone is actually trying to do it "for real".
This means that for the good stuff (utopia, advanced tech - like teleportation, space flight, genetic enhancement, robotics, AI, preservation of the environment), somewhere someone is looking into how to make it real, existing in the real world.
Now for the scary part: the law is double-edged.
That means that someone psyco-enough is going for the bad ideas, too (genocide, space-war, bacteriological & nanotechnological warfare, hollywood-style mass murders, unchecked exploitation of the environment, total informationcontrol, supercapitalism - i.e. where *everything*, even lives can be bought and sold, e.t.c.). It doesn't have to be a single person, this goes for regimes too.
Military domination of space is also an idea that has been thought up, and a bad one in my book (since it *will* lead to conflict)
One can only hope that humanity prioritizes the good ideas, and thus builds us a better future.
(sorry for the spelling misstakes)
Dude, if you have a file of voter names and in the next column next to it, what they voted for (not gotten through exit polls, but rather their votes) -
Post it on the net. You would be the biggest "deep throat" of theese times, and cause some mayor political issues (fun! )
Funny, the numbers finding that piracy is low in Sweden, that's not what we hear from our local BSA (and the media industry in the form of antipiratbyrån).
Considering that Personal Computers are abundant, Broadband service (both fiber and *DSL) readily available, and that Marketing forces mark up stuff in the swedish market (you can easily find for example MS Office 30% off if you buy it from the US), I wonder if those numbers are correct.
The reason for the good connectivity in Sweden is that it has been a priority - seen as a infrastructure investment - from the goverments point of view. Swedes generally believe that some things are better handeled communualy instead of privately, as I've been reading on/. has been stopping communual WiFi blanket projects for some US states (cities?)http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/ 19/0126204&tid=193&tid=1. You could simply say that here the goverment steps in sometimes (seldom) to ensure that the infrastructure is done (and right) and that it is provided in a well mannered way. (for 3g access that manifests itself as requiring a minimum accessability - areawise and sevicewise - for the privately run operator to fulfill)
Comparing privatism vs. communally doing things is actually quite intresting - there is not always higher efficiency of doing it privately.
My example is the swedish post system (wich was privatized quite recently):
Before there was one post (thus one postman doing his rounds). Today, there are 2 players (at least in rural areas), the original old post and a new uppstart primarily doing rural areas.
This has the following effect on society: First, someone has to pay someone TWICE (total cost for soceity) for delivering to the same adresses in rural areas. Since its privatised it has to be profitable, something we customers have to pay in increased tariffs (porto). Also, since the original post has to compete in the lucurative rural areas and loose buisness to the competition, nobody wants to deliver post to the geograpcal areas sparsely populated (since that delivery is done at a loss), thus crippling the total service overall.
this is only one of many examples I could put fourth (look at the US mobilephone companies for example)
sorry for the spelling misstakes - my swenglish sometimes shows through!
welcome our new Kyoto Treaty overlords!
(It had to be done;-)
No, but seriously, this is a good thing (tm). Why newer (http://www.solardepot.com/) ways of generating power isn't used, is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
But, if I may guess: it won't be the UN doing it, it will be China (I'm just doing the math: approx. 1/6 th of the world population - that's potential internetusers - are Chineese). And they will just "sync" the DNS register with what they want included (if they feel the need for it), and probably punish anyone in china not using this Chineese DNS register.
You can also bet that most companies in the rest of the world will fall in line with this - just ignoring 1/6 of your potential customers just isn't an option.
This is exactly the scenario that the UN is trying to avoid. This is exactly why the UN needs to be backed!
It's actually exactly how the net is supposed to work; bringing forth information and real peoples accounts, instead of somebodys FUD.
Does ANYONE have those?
Ive currently heard (and you will get my comments on the arguments in non-italic) .xxx domain, and not to forget: what's going on with the iraqi domain? r net_domain/?
The US doesn't mess with how its run
false: we have the whole mess with the
Well, since the current owners are in US custody (!??) its in limbo: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/30/iraq_inte
Transferring power will lead to greater Cencorship
Oh, cencorship as in preventing media to display coffins of dead soldiers? Or showing a nipple on tv? Banning Al Jazeera from reporting from iraq? Or pictures from abu ghraib? (where the public - thats us, folks - have the right to know what is actually going on).
No, my dear friends - it's time to 'fess up, and admit that there are plenty of countries - participating in the UN, as a matter of fact - that does the whole "Freedom of speech"-thing better than the US.
The UN is corrupt
Arguably the UN has had its share of scandals - it's no suprise since any political body draws the attention of people out for personal gain. This is solved by actively participating, and demanding increased opaquity of how the UN (or any political body - the US for example) is run. I won't even go into the whole Haliburton, Bush AWOL, Saudi connection, Campain Contributions and Florida vote scandals.
Historically the internet came from the US - so it should remain in US control
This one is plain dumb. Just because something is historical, doesn't mean that it neccessarily is good today.
The US runs it better (technically)0 9-14?lang=en
Not really. Ever heard of pharming? Im going to do a littel flag-waiving myself, and point out that right now Sweden is on the track to implement DNS-SEC, for examplehttp://www.nic.se/english/nyheter/pr/2005-
To keep internet democratic, the US should be in control
It IS a issue of democracy. The US has to hand over the power to a international democratic body, any other action is per definition UN-Democratic (no pun intended). I'm sorry, but arguing anything else is just moot.
It's the US responsibility to participate and to try to affect the outcome of voting on these issues in the UN. That, my friends, is how democracy is supposed to work.(and I shouldn't have to point out what democracy actually is)
I'm scared of that the rest of the world won't put the US intrests first.
Well, should they? Honestly?
The rest of the world is not, I repeat NOT, by definition Evil. Remember, North Korea, China (as is the US) are a part of the rest of the world. There are enough good countries to balance out the "bad" ones ("bad" as in the _US sense of the word).
Ok, I'll probably be modded down for this post, but before bringing out the flamethrowers, I'm actually intrested in hearing good arguments for keeping it in US control.
Regards ...
I'm sorry, but Cencorship, Control, Taxation, History or technical "we-do-it-best" doesn't affect the above.
It's the US responsibility to participate and to try to affect the outcome of voting on these issues in the UN. That, my friends, is how democracy is supposed to work.
uhm .... care to point me in the direction of "share" in the form of an URL?
Googling for the word "share" provides ... less than satisfactory results. ;-)
Thank you (and LedGem in the comment below)! Always count on slashdot for providing great information.
... ok, intresting article, but I thought
that WinMX was replaced by the more secure WinNY.
Trouble is, WinNY isn't to easy to find, especially the latest version transalated from japaneese (i.e. into english menus).
As for "random politician/preacher", Pat Robertson has *influence*. Both over those who listen, and then some over the current administration (religious right, remeber). This guy has followers. He even run for precidency in -87, so calling him "random" is ... maybe underestimating him a little?
please read more about pat from http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televan gelists/pat-robertson/. (the facts can also be checked up at more trustworthy sources. Exercise left to the reader...)
Ok, hope this won't be marked up as flamebait.
I'm trying to be insightful here, scrutinizing this actual event that marks a point in history were a former presidential candidate with close ties to the administration calls for assasination of another country's head of state, in public, on TV.
... oh, and I almost forgot a crucial point: If someone said this about the US president, they would be procecuded. But of course, for influential white rich americans suggesting this for someone else, it flyes.
I'm sorry, but not denouncing Pat Robertson for the Assassination remark, clearly shows what the current administration has as values to the international community in regard to terror. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/08/24/AR2005082400331.html
Yes, well, they are also heavily looking into doing more unmanned missions.m
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1432901.ht
(don't know if this is a good or bad thing - probably safer for astronauts)
I've had this theory for som time now which I'm trying to formulate into one single phrase:
"If it can be thought up, there exists at least one person trying to make it happen" - Phil
So, if you look at that phase in deptht it would mean that for everything that the human race has fantisized about doing, somewhere, somehow someone is actually trying to do it "for real".
This means that for the good stuff (utopia, advanced tech - like teleportation, space flight, genetic enhancement, robotics, AI, preservation of the environment), somewhere someone is looking into how to make it real, existing in the real world.
Now for the scary part: the law is double-edged.
That means that someone psyco-enough is going for the bad ideas, too (genocide, space-war, bacteriological & nanotechnological warfare, hollywood-style mass murders, unchecked exploitation of the environment, total informationcontrol, supercapitalism - i.e. where *everything*, even lives can be bought and sold, e.t.c.). It doesn't have to be a single person, this goes for regimes too.
Military domination of space is also an idea that has been thought up, and a bad one in my book (since it *will* lead to conflict)
One can only hope that humanity prioritizes the good ideas, and thus builds us a better future. (sorry for the spelling misstakes)
Dude, if you have a file of voter names and in the next column next to it, what they voted for (not gotten through exit polls, but rather their votes) - Post it on the net. You would be the biggest "deep throat" of theese times, and cause some mayor political issues (fun! )
Funny, the numbers finding that piracy is low in Sweden, that's not what we hear from our local BSA (and the media industry in the form of antipiratbyrån). Considering that Personal Computers are abundant, Broadband service (both fiber and *DSL) readily available, and that Marketing forces mark up stuff in the swedish market (you can easily find for example MS Office 30% off if you buy it from the US), I wonder if those numbers are correct.
(From the CIA factbook - http://http//www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factboo
But quite few people live here (9 million - compare that to 7 million people living in london)
The reason for the good connectivity in Sweden is that it has been a priority - seen as a infrastructure investment - from the goverments point of view. /. has been stopping communual WiFi blanket projects for some US states (cities?)http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/ 19/0126204&tid=193&tid=1. You could simply say that here the goverment steps in sometimes (seldom) to ensure that the infrastructure is done (and right) and that it is provided in a well mannered way.
Swedes generally believe that some things are better handeled communualy instead of privately, as I've been reading on
(for 3g access that manifests itself as requiring a minimum accessability - areawise and sevicewise - for the privately run operator to fulfill)
Comparing privatism vs. communally doing things is actually quite intresting - there is not always higher efficiency of doing it privately.
My example is the swedish post system (wich was privatized quite recently):
Before there was one post (thus one postman doing his rounds). Today, there are 2 players (at least in rural areas), the original old post and a new uppstart primarily doing rural areas.
This has the following effect on society: First, someone has to pay someone TWICE (total cost for soceity) for delivering to the same adresses in rural areas. Since its privatised it has to be profitable, something we customers have to pay in increased tariffs (porto). Also, since the original post has to compete in the lucurative rural areas and loose buisness to the competition, nobody wants to deliver post to the geograpcal areas sparsely populated (since that delivery is done at a loss), thus crippling the total service overall.
this is only one of many examples I could put fourth (look at the US mobilephone companies for example)
sorry for the spelling misstakes - my swenglish sometimes shows through!
welcome our new Kyoto Treaty overlords! (It had to be done ;-)
No, but seriously, this is a good thing (tm). Why newer (http://www.solardepot.com/) ways of generating power isn't used, is beyond me.