Actually, there are even multiple standards in the U.S. And that is the way it should be. The competition will foster improving standards and better prices, which benefits consumers.
Multiple incompatible ways of doing things is not a good state of affairs just for the sake of it. It's like saying everyone having their own document format is good because it fosters competition and allows the best one to emerge. It doesn't, because there's little to choose between them. It just means you can't use your phone on everyone else's network, which only benefits the company, not the customer.
If there was a real market and consumer demand for interoperability - without government regulation and intervention - it would already exist.
Why? No one manufacturer can offer interoperability, and if one group spent the money to convert, they'd be paying for something which the manufacturers who didn't pay benefit equally from. So there's no commercial incentive for them to interoperate. Capitalism doesn't always work in the customers' interests, no matter what you might like to believe.
BTW - My phone will work in Europe, and it works in the U.S. Maybe you didn't buy the right phone?
Quite possibly, many of the modern ones support both standards and will switch as necessary, especially the more expensive ones (which mine isn't). But if people can save money by leaving off support for multiple standards, some of them will.
People criticised OS/2 as being massively overdesigned. However, it was properly designed, and over time it showed more and more. It's an incredibly well done and integrated system, especially for its time. The GUI and CLI work together better than any other OS, ever. Linux's open chucking-it-together development has no doubt helped it grow relatively quickly with relatively few paid workers, but the value of a good design shows through in the end. I really hope some way is found to carry OS/2 on.
That's the main selling point of HD-DVD. Blu-ray has more data storage, but it's cheaper to make players for HD-DVD. If they're looking solely at features, of course blu-ray will win.
It doesn't say they can't be exercised against the united nations, just against the purposes and principles of the united nations, which are well defined and not at all nefarious.
What defines a standards organisation then? Can I set one up and have it ratify what I like? I've always held and seen it assumed that if the complete specification is published in such a way that anyone can implement it from the specification it is a standard.
Besides, it's intel themselves that are publishing a document they call the IA-32 standard. Isn't there estoppel or something that means if they're saying in one place that this is the IA-32 standard they can't argue somewhere else that that isn't the IA-32 standard? They could quite easily call their compiler a "Intel Pentium Compiler", but they don't, they call it an IA-32 compiler, and it should compile for what they call IA-32.
Is there a standard for electronic documents that you would accept? RTF is published by MS, OASIS is only published by the OASIS group, not ratified by ISO or anyone afaik. HTML is as far as I know just a set of W3C specifications. I'd prefer to judge whether something's a standard based on the spec itself (and its license) rather than the name of the body that ratified it.
So, if a website has a copyright notice saying "copying is strictly prohibited without prior written consent", but they don't go after visitors to their website, are they selectively enforcing copyright?
A notice like that is unenforcable in just about any country. Even in the UK where I live, you're allowed to make transitory copies for the sole purpose of using something in its intended fashion, which the copies in your temp folder come under. (The internet archive would probably be illegal over here, but it's not in our jurisdiction afaik.) In the US with fair use rights copyright doesn't really cover personal copies at all. Copyright covers a large number of things, it's not as simple as just controlling permission to copy.
RTFCharter. Seriously, look at their human rights charter, it's as good as the US constitution. (Better imo, since no right to bear arms, though I can see some people would see that as a bad thing)
Well, let's have the UN create their root server, and then people who want to can point to it, or the US ones. But that would cause more problems, because the same domain name would mean different things in different countries. It's better to try and find a diplomatic solution before resorting to making a switch.
The hardware I'm using is not owned by the US. I'm running through my ISP's servers and some other European one to (at the moment) a hosting company in the Netherlands. I use European mirrors for my big downloads. The websites I visit are all over the place, a lot of them US yes but more of them European. The basic research was American, but if you didn't want other people using it by themselves why the fuck did you make it an open protocol? Would you feel the same if Finns were complaining about others feeling entitled to do their own stuff with linus?
I would be fine without the US on my internet, there are a few things I'd miss but not too many, and I'd prefer that to being on an internet controlled by the US. Why should the US be able to control what europeans do on european servers?
Verisign's monopoly has been quite a problem. If you want another example of abuse, ICANN's introduction of new tlds. Partly these are to make money by getting people to register new names, and partly they're to screw people offering alternative root servers. (1. Someone makes a new root server 2. To give a value added and get people to switch, a group of these alternative servers get together and start selling domains under a new tld, like.biz, for cheap 3. ICANN notices, adds the new tld itself, and stomps all over the new root server and their customers 4. new root server has reputation collapse, dies. It's happened repeatedly).
Your link doesn't seem to work, but it would be great if they could work out one cell phone standard so my european phone would work in the US too. The UN seems a perfect body to come up with something like that.
I'd rather rely on the world as a whole retaining freedom of speech (Enough countries can vote down China or anywhere else) than be entirely dependent on the US retaining freedom of speech, especially the way things have been going over there recently. But maybe that's just me.
The internet has one worldwide location of control only through a quirk of history (it was originally solely in the US). IIRC there are 8 authoritative root nameservers, they just all happen to be in the US. They don't have to be. Every country could run their own. That would cause a bit of trouble when they disagreed though. But having them all in the US is a bad idea, it makes the network too centralised for a start.
HTTP doesn't depend on TCP/IP. You could, for example, run it over IPv9, a Chinese protocol, or ATM or something similar. We don't, but that's more for historical reasons than anything else. The fact is the Internet is bigger than any country, and no one country contributed enough of the protocols to claim they wrote the internet as it is today.
You're being selective, and in some cases, downright lying.
WWW: later addon from MIT
No, created at CERN, in Switzerland.
While many of the older protocols were made in the US, that's normally a result of the fact that in the early days the internet was entirely in the US. Modern things often come from elsewhere - the mud and by extension MMOG is a British invention, IRC comes from Finland, ICQ from Israel. Additionally, the current versions of most protocols have had input and in some cases authorship from many different countries, even if the original version was US. Look at all the people working on IPv6, for example. The US has a lot of the infrastructure and protocols, yes, but I don't think a majority anymore. To many people, the web is the internet, so the average user isn't dependent on US technologies at all. It has become truly international, and belongs in the hands of a truly international body.
There is still no proof that the weapons of mass destruction weren't moved.
That wasn't what the weapons inspectors said. They said they haven't found any. They said they wanted more time. Your government and mine said that they *knew* there were WMD, my prime minister even said they knew they could be launched in 45 minutes. They have admitted that they did not know, and that they are not certain there are WMDs. Looks like the UN's the one in the right there.
It looks like you just reworded "the U.S. went to Iraq for oil." B.S. If they went there for oil, why am I still paying outrageous prices for gas?
Because the corporations can make you pay that much. It wasn't about cheaper oil for american individuals, it was about bigger profits for american companies.
100% of the vulnerabilities on my linux box that I know about are Unreal Tournament. I think a reasonable rough-and-ready approximation is count the bugs per megabyte.
Because he resisted the future. He didn't want pictures on the web, and certainly not all the plugin based stuff we have today. You get the impression he wanted to keep it academic. If TBL had run the show the web would be just another cool research toy.
I can get my linux system down to 8 seconds from the lilo/grub prompt. Figure maybe 5s if that to the prompt, so set the timeout to 0 and it's powerswitch-login prompt in 15 seconds easy. Most of that 15 seconds is taken with the kernel connecting itself up to the hardware. This is not a good idea to get rid of, otherwise one day you turn on the machine and it doesn't notice you removed $PERIPHERAL until it's too late. For the rest, I'd say maybe 6 seconds of x86 legacy cruft that you can't get rid of. But it's still a reasonably short boot time. What takes the time on most distros is a) probing hardware and loading modules for it. You can get around that by compiling your own kernel with the hardware you need built in and everything you don't left out, then turn off hotplug/coldplug. b) running init scripts serially, through a (relatively) shockingly slow interpreter like bash. You can speed that up immensely by either using make or similar to run multiple init scripts at once with dependencies sorted (I've seen a few efforts at that) or getting a C program to do the stuff init does.
The whole point of a technological singularity is that it's a singularity. There's no way to look beyond it, because the afterwards is not going to be like anything we can imagine.
No, printing out the site for personal use is clearly fair use. However, if you print out someone's website and sell copies to people, they have every right to sue the pants off you.
Slashdot Mirror
Multiple incompatible ways of doing things is not a good state of affairs just for the sake of it. It's like saying everyone having their own document format is good because it fosters competition and allows the best one to emerge. It doesn't, because there's little to choose between them. It just means you can't use your phone on everyone else's network, which only benefits the company, not the customer.
If there was a real market and consumer demand for interoperability - without government regulation and intervention - it would already exist.
Why? No one manufacturer can offer interoperability, and if one group spent the money to convert, they'd be paying for something which the manufacturers who didn't pay benefit equally from. So there's no commercial incentive for them to interoperate. Capitalism doesn't always work in the customers' interests, no matter what you might like to believe.
BTW - My phone will work in Europe, and it works in the U.S. Maybe you didn't buy the right phone?
Quite possibly, many of the modern ones support both standards and will switch as necessary, especially the more expensive ones (which mine isn't). But if people can save money by leaving off support for multiple standards, some of them will.
People criticised OS/2 as being massively overdesigned. However, it was properly designed, and over time it showed more and more. It's an incredibly well done and integrated system, especially for its time. The GUI and CLI work together better than any other OS, ever. Linux's open chucking-it-together development has no doubt helped it grow relatively quickly with relatively few paid workers, but the value of a good design shows through in the end. I really hope some way is found to carry OS/2 on.
That's the main selling point of HD-DVD. Blu-ray has more data storage, but it's cheaper to make players for HD-DVD. If they're looking solely at features, of course blu-ray will win.
/far too young for this site.
It doesn't say they can't be exercised against the united nations, just against the purposes and principles of the united nations, which are well defined and not at all nefarious.
Besides, it's intel themselves that are publishing a document they call the IA-32 standard. Isn't there estoppel or something that means if they're saying in one place that this is the IA-32 standard they can't argue somewhere else that that isn't the IA-32 standard? They could quite easily call their compiler a "Intel Pentium Compiler", but they don't, they call it an IA-32 compiler, and it should compile for what they call IA-32.
Is there a standard for electronic documents that you would accept? RTF is published by MS, OASIS is only published by the OASIS group, not ratified by ISO or anyone afaik. HTML is as far as I know just a set of W3C specifications. I'd prefer to judge whether something's a standard based on the spec itself (and its license) rather than the name of the body that ratified it.
A notice like that is unenforcable in just about any country. Even in the UK where I live, you're allowed to make transitory copies for the sole purpose of using something in its intended fashion, which the copies in your temp folder come under. (The internet archive would probably be illegal over here, but it's not in our jurisdiction afaik.) In the US with fair use rights copyright doesn't really cover personal copies at all. Copyright covers a large number of things, it's not as simple as just controlling permission to copy.
Try reading the UN's human rights charter?
RTFCharter. Seriously, look at their human rights charter, it's as good as the US constitution. (Better imo, since no right to bear arms, though I can see some people would see that as a bad thing)
If it doesn't need central control, then the US should give up control and let everyone make their own root servers.
Well, let's have the UN create their root server, and then people who want to can point to it, or the US ones. But that would cause more problems, because the same domain name would mean different things in different countries. It's better to try and find a diplomatic solution before resorting to making a switch.
I would be fine without the US on my internet, there are a few things I'd miss but not too many, and I'd prefer that to being on an internet controlled by the US. Why should the US be able to control what europeans do on european servers?
Verisign's monopoly has been quite a problem. If you want another example of abuse, ICANN's introduction of new tlds. Partly these are to make money by getting people to register new names, and partly they're to screw people offering alternative root servers. (1. Someone makes a new root server 2. To give a value added and get people to switch, a group of these alternative servers get together and start selling domains under a new tld, like .biz, for cheap 3. ICANN notices, adds the new tld itself, and stomps all over the new root server and their customers 4. new root server has reputation collapse, dies. It's happened repeatedly).
Your link doesn't seem to work, but it would be great if they could work out one cell phone standard so my european phone would work in the US too. The UN seems a perfect body to come up with something like that.
I'd rather rely on the world as a whole retaining freedom of speech (Enough countries can vote down China or anywhere else) than be entirely dependent on the US retaining freedom of speech, especially the way things have been going over there recently. But maybe that's just me.
The internet has one worldwide location of control only through a quirk of history (it was originally solely in the US). IIRC there are 8 authoritative root nameservers, they just all happen to be in the US. They don't have to be. Every country could run their own. That would cause a bit of trouble when they disagreed though. But having them all in the US is a bad idea, it makes the network too centralised for a start.
HTTP doesn't depend on TCP/IP. You could, for example, run it over IPv9, a Chinese protocol, or ATM or something similar. We don't, but that's more for historical reasons than anything else. The fact is the Internet is bigger than any country, and no one country contributed enough of the protocols to claim they wrote the internet as it is today.
WWW: later addon from MIT
No, created at CERN, in Switzerland.
While many of the older protocols were made in the US, that's normally a result of the fact that in the early days the internet was entirely in the US. Modern things often come from elsewhere - the mud and by extension MMOG is a British invention, IRC comes from Finland, ICQ from Israel. Additionally, the current versions of most protocols have had input and in some cases authorship from many different countries, even if the original version was US. Look at all the people working on IPv6, for example. The US has a lot of the infrastructure and protocols, yes, but I don't think a majority anymore. To many people, the web is the internet, so the average user isn't dependent on US technologies at all. It has become truly international, and belongs in the hands of a truly international body.
That wasn't what the weapons inspectors said. They said they haven't found any. They said they wanted more time. Your government and mine said that they *knew* there were WMD, my prime minister even said they knew they could be launched in 45 minutes. They have admitted that they did not know, and that they are not certain there are WMDs. Looks like the UN's the one in the right there.
It looks like you just reworded "the U.S. went to Iraq for oil." B.S. If they went there for oil, why am I still paying outrageous prices for gas?
Because the corporations can make you pay that much. It wasn't about cheaper oil for american individuals, it was about bigger profits for american companies.
100% of the vulnerabilities on my linux box that I know about are Unreal Tournament. I think a reasonable rough-and-ready approximation is count the bugs per megabyte.
Because he resisted the future. He didn't want pictures on the web, and certainly not all the plugin based stuff we have today. You get the impression he wanted to keep it academic. If TBL had run the show the web would be just another cool research toy.
Get the torrent here.
I can get my linux system down to 8 seconds from the lilo/grub prompt. Figure maybe 5s if that to the prompt, so set the timeout to 0 and it's powerswitch-login prompt in 15 seconds easy. Most of that 15 seconds is taken with the kernel connecting itself up to the hardware. This is not a good idea to get rid of, otherwise one day you turn on the machine and it doesn't notice you removed $PERIPHERAL until it's too late. For the rest, I'd say maybe 6 seconds of x86 legacy cruft that you can't get rid of. But it's still a reasonably short boot time. What takes the time on most distros is a) probing hardware and loading modules for it. You can get around that by compiling your own kernel with the hardware you need built in and everything you don't left out, then turn off hotplug/coldplug. b) running init scripts serially, through a (relatively) shockingly slow interpreter like bash. You can speed that up immensely by either using make or similar to run multiple init scripts at once with dependencies sorted (I've seen a few efforts at that) or getting a C program to do the stuff init does.
The whole point of a technological singularity is that it's a singularity. There's no way to look beyond it, because the afterwards is not going to be like anything we can imagine.
No, printing out the site for personal use is clearly fair use. However, if you print out someone's website and sell copies to people, they have every right to sue the pants off you.