OK, but that will have to work both ways. The obvious problem that will then arise is that one will only have access to the information that one can afford. That suggests to me that the internet will be less useful to all users and the poorer nations will suffer even more than they do at present. Furthermore, don't Americans (and any other nation) benefit from having their viewpoint and business exported? Who should then pay for it? The exporters who are benefiting from it, or the importer who wants to know what the foreign viewpoint is, or wants to purchase something from another country? Will contributors to Wikipedia, for example, be paid for their work if everyone has to pay to access the information? And I don't think your own security and intelligence services would be too pleased to learn that they would have to pay to access internet data that originates outside the USA.
A few weeks ago there was a discussion here on network neutrality and someone mentioned the Finnish Government's banned list of websites. I don't suppose that you looked at the list as it was all related to pron, but if you had you would have noticed that many, and possibly the majority of, sites appeared to be based in the USA. It might be that your biggest internet export is pornography! I'm not sure that is how I would wish to be known to everyone outside the US, but I suppose it is helping your balance of payments. After all, such sites must be making money somehow.
Thank you for an intelligent response to my post. Although I was sincere in what I said in my previous post I fully expected to be flamed for having 'anti-American' or 'unpatriotic' opinions, at least from a US-centric viewpoint. No, I think the current method of funding the internet infrastructure is probably the best that we can come up with. It seems like the problems in the US of poor broadband for large areas of the country (due to understandable geographic and economic conditions) will have to be solved and funded by Americans while many smaller nations enjoy better internet infrastructure than many of your fellow citizens appear to have access to. If your bit of the internet needs rebuilding then please carry on, I am quite content with the part that my taxes help fund and the service that I get for my money. I already get 8 meg broadband access, internet telephone calls throughout Europe and N America for next to nothing, and 8 TV channels via internet all for a total of 38 euros a month.
Bollocks! The US government has not paid for much of the internet infrastructure outside the USA, except perhaps for some undersea cables. It may surprise you but the world is MUCH bigger than America, and it comprises of lots of different countries each with their own governments. Have you looked at a map of the world recently? They have all paid for their own infrastructure and, together, it makes up the internet. Now if you had said the 'US government had funded the invention and development of DARPANET which eventually became the technical beginning of the internet' then I would have agreed with you.
As a fellow European I think that Verkkokauppa was absolutely correct in their response. Why didn't you check that the computer was suitable for linux before you bought it? They sold an item (i.e. the computer) for a specific purpose (i.e. to run the software that it contained). They made no promises about its suitability for running linux, or for making toast, milking cows or ensuring that the railway network runs on time. If you want to use it for any of those purposes it is your responsibility to ensure that you buy the appropriate product. However, if you had discovered that the computer didn't even run the software that it was delivered with then you would have a case because the item was not fit for the purpose for which that they advertised and sold it. But simply expecting it to be able to do something other than that for which it was advertised is wrong.
Many shops in Europe do do accept returns on goods even if the purchaser simply changes his or her mind (i.e. on a whim), provided that it is unopened and accompanied by the receipt. I will admit that few of these shops sell computers in my experience.
Firstly, this is possible because the IWF have passed the URLs of sites which 'they' consider to be unsuitable to BT who have blocked them. It is NOT because anyone is monitoring all internet traffic. If a site is not reported then it cannot be blocked
Secondly, this may be the case for BT, but it is not a legal directive, or even a request, from the Government to all ISPs. If you dislike the fact that a particular ISP is doing something that you disagree with then you are free to use a different ISP. So I still cannot agree that
[a]ll UK ISPs already filter for child porn.... They don't. They only block those sites which the IWF is aware of, and it is only those ISPs who choose to do so that are playing this game.
However, of great concern is what yardstick does the IWF use for deciding that a site is terrorism or child pornography? If I show a picture of a molotov cocktail, i.e. a bottle containing some inflammable fluid with a burning wick, am I now guilty of terrorism? After all, someone might get an idea from my picture and manufacture a similar device. But what if I am describing a weapon used by the Home Guard while training to defend the UK from Hitler's army? Am I still a terrorist, and were members of the Home Guard terrorists? A similar argument can be stated against 'child pornography'. If I place a photo of my grandchild on a web site is that child pornography? What if she is wearing a swimming costume? Hell, what if she is naked? Nudity is not an offence. Unfortunately, the best legal minds find it very difficult to define pornography in hard, legal terms. It is often a very subjective decision. What gives the IWF the right - and inherent infallibility - to judge such matters?
I'm afraid I must disagree. If what you say is true, then it would be impossible for any individual to access banned sites and then to download the material which they contain. The number of cases in the UK where individuals have been taken to court for having material that contravenes some law or other (e.g. terrorist material, child pornography etc) which has been downloaded from the internet suggests that such blocking is not taking place. I admit that the government would probably carry out such blocking if it could but there is nothing to suggest that it is currently taking place on a widespread scale.
The link that you gave does not state that any blocking is taking place, it simply serves as a focus where complaints can be sent. In fact, the page showing the 'relationship' between the IWF and the police is blank! Similarly, the page showing the relationship with the Government simply gives information on those politicians who support the IWF. As far as I understand it, there is no legal remit for ISPs to monitor the content of your internet traffic in the UK. It can be done for individual cases where the police or relevant agency can obtain a warrant suitably authorised under current legal and judicial rules.
Yes - exactly as it is now. I like it! I can see the thread clearly, it is snappy on my Sempron-powered computer using Firefox browser, and the size of the buttons doesn't cause me any problems on a 1280x1024 screen.
I just thought that I would redress the balance of opinion in this thread.
The OP is correct. They haven't been tampered with. They might have been inspected, X-rayed, studied, replicated, imaged or whatever, but they haven't been tampered with.....
Which is exactly the way it should be. Because, under UK law, it is illegal to use someone else's computer system (including a network or wifi connection) with the express permission of the owner. Operating an insecured wifi network does not, under the law, give anyone the 'express permission' to use that network. You are quoting the charges because they sound wrong to you - but they are fully with compliant with UK law. Are you making the assumption that UK law should be, or is, the same as US law?
What right does some US state politician have to dictate how the rest of the world uses the internet? OK, so perhaps he can tell other Kentuckians (?) what they can, and cannot, do but outside of his own state he has no influence whatsoever. And please don't counter this with the old 'we invented it, we can dictate how it is used' argument. Its a big world and you are also part of it, but only a part. No other politician from any other nation should have, nor currently has, such a right either
.... standard set of functionalities that are actually useful to most people
I disagree. The computer should contain just enough software to do the task(s) intended of it. If it is a mail server it is irrelevant whether some arbitrary user can modify his photographs or play mp3s. One of the problems today is the Microsoft view, since taken up by many linux distros, that it should be all things to all men. That is the way that numerous vulnerabilities can be introduced to a system unnecessarily. If a GUI is required on a specific system by a specific user then so be it but it should not follow that a GUI must be part of every system. I have already outlined one particular drawback of this idea, but there are others e.g. required disk space, computing power being wasted needlessly. But what would be the benefits?
OK I can see where you are coming from, but it is a rather pessimistic (but not entirely surprising) view. These are individuals who were not detained in the US but on the field of combat. I will not enter into the debate as to whether they should be considered to deserve PW status or not - in most countries it is a categoric 'YES' but the US wants to view this differently for the time being. (Incidentally, how does the US view the status of its own personnel whom might be taken prisoner? Yep, I thought so....) But people who are detained in the US for whatever crimes they might be accused of are not 'usually' sent to Guantanamo Bay. So the constitution, abused and distorted as it might currently be, does appear to apply to all people in the US and not only 'citizens' of that country.
Are you suggesting that the Constitution only provides safeguards and rights for US citizens in America, and not everybody else who might be there? Can I still expect the police to provide the same level as protection to me and my property as they do for others?
If the answer is 'No', then why should anyone other than a US citizen consider complying with your laws - surely they only apply to Americans and not to the rest of us?
Are you purposefully being difficult or are you an idiot?
If you follow the thread the OP pointed out that, if Microsoft uses its patent claims then it would encounter more difficulties in Europe than it would in the USA as a result. This is because, as a percentage of possible users, linux usage is more widespread in Europe than it is in the US. Secondly, various European nations and the EU itself come down pretty hard on monopolies that try to throw their weight around. Its a fact. Deal with it.
This thread is not an insult to Americans but, in this particular instance, the USA is not leading the world. There are other countries that use linux far more than it is used in the USA. That is what the OP was referring to when he said that he hoped that Americans would not be offended by his comments or, in his words, suffer from bruised egos.
You, on the otherhand, are getting embroiled in an argument about who is bigger, market shares, economic output or whatever. It has got NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. No-one, other than yourself perhaps, was even discussing that point. Now please pay attention and try to follow the discussion.
But you are ignoring the obvious. Perhaps if I rephrase it on behalf of the OP - 'Linux adoption is already way higher in European countries than in the USA'. Now it is clearly apples and apples and the OP's point is well made. And if that fact bruises Americans' egos (at least as much as it appears to have bruised yours....) then we all apologise for that but ignoring facts doesn't change things.
Not strictly true. Other US companies are supposed to pay them. Those of us who don't have software patents don't really care what Trend might think. Now, ask yourself, who is the US patent system helping? It doesn't matter a jot whether you argue the semantics of 'inventing' or 'investing', the vast majority or the people that are being penalised by this system live in N America
For example, should they prevent the proposal of a hypothetical ".f*ck" TLD?
Why? What does FUCK mean in Danish, Norwegian, French, Italian, Thai, Loatian, Greek, Peruvian or whatever? Oh, I see! Its protecting your language against abuse. So the internet isn't really 'inter' in your view. Its yours and it must be in your language. Ah, that makes your position clear.
The reason that ICANN does not want to be under US supervision is that the US is no longer upholding common beliefs or other nation's views. As has been noted in other posts, the US is no longer respected by many other countries because of its actions in the last decade or so. Can you now see why their request is not in the least bit surprising, not quite so unreasonable?
Thank you for your reply - and I willingly withdraw my criticism of ACs and their ability to acknowledge when they are wrong. I stand corrected, and happily so.
I agree that the site might not be the most authoritative, but he poster simply quoted it without making any claims that it was an impeachable source. I too do not know whether the dates that are quoted are correct or even feasible but as I have no better data with which to challenge it then I must accept it at face value whilst agreeing with your own analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, but that will have to work both ways. The obvious problem that will then arise is that one will only have access to the information that one can afford. That suggests to me that the internet will be less useful to all users and the poorer nations will suffer even more than they do at present. Furthermore, don't Americans (and any other nation) benefit from having their viewpoint and business exported? Who should then pay for it? The exporters who are benefiting from it, or the importer who wants to know what the foreign viewpoint is, or wants to purchase something from another country? Will contributors to Wikipedia, for example, be paid for their work if everyone has to pay to access the information? And I don't think your own security and intelligence services would be too pleased to learn that they would have to pay to access internet data that originates outside the USA.
A few weeks ago there was a discussion here on network neutrality and someone mentioned the Finnish Government's banned list of websites. I don't suppose that you looked at the list as it was all related to pron, but if you had you would have noticed that many, and possibly the majority of, sites appeared to be based in the USA. It might be that your biggest internet export is pornography! I'm not sure that is how I would wish to be known to everyone outside the US, but I suppose it is helping your balance of payments. After all, such sites must be making money somehow.
Thank you for an intelligent response to my post. Although I was sincere in what I said in my previous post I fully expected to be flamed for having 'anti-American' or 'unpatriotic' opinions, at least from a US-centric viewpoint. No, I think the current method of funding the internet infrastructure is probably the best that we can come up with. It seems like the problems in the US of poor broadband for large areas of the country (due to understandable geographic and economic conditions) will have to be solved and funded by Americans while many smaller nations enjoy better internet infrastructure than many of your fellow citizens appear to have access to. If your bit of the internet needs rebuilding then please carry on, I am quite content with the part that my taxes help fund and the service that I get for my money. I already get 8 meg broadband access, internet telephone calls throughout Europe and N America for next to nothing, and 8 TV channels via internet all for a total of 38 euros a month.
Bollocks! The US government has not paid for much of the internet infrastructure outside the USA, except perhaps for some undersea cables. It may surprise you but the world is MUCH bigger than America, and it comprises of lots of different countries each with their own governments. Have you looked at a map of the world recently? They have all paid for their own infrastructure and, together, it makes up the internet. Now if you had said the 'US government had funded the invention and development of DARPANET which eventually became the technical beginning of the internet' then I would have agreed with you.
As a fellow European I think that Verkkokauppa was absolutely correct in their response. Why didn't you check that the computer was suitable for linux before you bought it? They sold an item (i.e. the computer) for a specific purpose (i.e. to run the software that it contained). They made no promises about its suitability for running linux, or for making toast, milking cows or ensuring that the railway network runs on time. If you want to use it for any of those purposes it is your responsibility to ensure that you buy the appropriate product. However, if you had discovered that the computer didn't even run the software that it was delivered with then you would have a case because the item was not fit for the purpose for which that they advertised and sold it. But simply expecting it to be able to do something other than that for which it was advertised is wrong.
Many shops in Europe do do accept returns on goods even if the purchaser simply changes his or her mind (i.e. on a whim), provided that it is unopened and accompanied by the receipt. I will admit that few of these shops sell computers in my experience.
I applaud you! But you missed 'gonna'....
$1mil!? No way, half the /.ers wouldn't understand what it meant, and the other half couldn't 'spel' it :-)))
Yes and No.
Firstly, this is possible because the IWF have passed the URLs of sites which 'they' consider to be unsuitable to BT who have blocked them. It is NOT because anyone is monitoring all internet traffic. If a site is not reported then it cannot be blocked
Secondly, this may be the case for BT, but it is not a legal directive, or even a request, from the Government to all ISPs. If you dislike the fact that a particular ISP is doing something that you disagree with then you are free to use a different ISP. So I still cannot agree that
[a]ll UK ISPs already filter for child porn.... They don't. They only block those sites which the IWF is aware of, and it is only those ISPs who choose to do so that are playing this game.However, of great concern is what yardstick does the IWF use for deciding that a site is terrorism or child pornography? If I show a picture of a molotov cocktail, i.e. a bottle containing some inflammable fluid with a burning wick, am I now guilty of terrorism? After all, someone might get an idea from my picture and manufacture a similar device. But what if I am describing a weapon used by the Home Guard while training to defend the UK from Hitler's army? Am I still a terrorist, and were members of the Home Guard terrorists? A similar argument can be stated against 'child pornography'. If I place a photo of my grandchild on a web site is that child pornography? What if she is wearing a swimming costume? Hell, what if she is naked? Nudity is not an offence. Unfortunately, the best legal minds find it very difficult to define pornography in hard, legal terms. It is often a very subjective decision. What gives the IWF the right - and inherent infallibility - to judge such matters?
The link that you gave does not state that any blocking is taking place, it simply serves as a focus where complaints can be sent. In fact, the page showing the 'relationship' between the IWF and the police is blank! Similarly, the page showing the relationship with the Government simply gives information on those politicians who support the IWF. As far as I understand it, there is no legal remit for ISPs to monitor the content of your internet traffic in the UK. It can be done for individual cases where the police or relevant agency can obtain a warrant suitably authorised under current legal and judicial rules.
Yes - exactly as it is now. I like it! I can see the thread clearly, it is snappy on my Sempron-powered computer using Firefox browser, and the size of the buttons doesn't cause me any problems on a 1280x1024 screen.
I just thought that I would redress the balance of opinion in this thread.
Nope, try 1917..... I suspect that was a typo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_JoplinThe OP is correct. They haven't been tampered with. They might have been inspected, X-rayed, studied, replicated, imaged or whatever, but they haven't been tampered with.....
..but you already worked that out for yourself
Which is exactly the way it should be. Because, under UK law, it is illegal to use someone else's computer system (including a network or wifi connection) with the express permission of the owner. Operating an insecured wifi network does not, under the law, give anyone the 'express permission' to use that network. You are quoting the charges because they sound wrong to you - but they are fully with compliant with UK law. Are you making the assumption that UK law should be, or is, the same as US law?
So it wasn't used to good effect?
What right does some US state politician have to dictate how the rest of the world uses the internet? OK, so perhaps he can tell other Kentuckians (?) what they can, and cannot, do but outside of his own state he has no influence whatsoever. And please don't counter this with the old 'we invented it, we can dictate how it is used' argument. Its a big world and you are also part of it, but only a part. No other politician from any other nation should have, nor currently has, such a right either
Not so - it is used quite frequently although perhaps not in your own country. In the UK it has no specific connection with legal matters.
I disagree. The computer should contain just enough software to do the task(s) intended of it. If it is a mail server it is irrelevant whether some arbitrary user can modify his photographs or play mp3s. One of the problems today is the Microsoft view, since taken up by many linux distros, that it should be all things to all men. That is the way that numerous vulnerabilities can be introduced to a system unnecessarily. If a GUI is required on a specific system by a specific user then so be it but it should not follow that a GUI must be part of every system. I have already outlined one particular drawback of this idea, but there are others e.g. required disk space, computing power being wasted needlessly. But what would be the benefits?
OK I can see where you are coming from, but it is a rather pessimistic (but not entirely surprising) view. These are individuals who were not detained in the US but on the field of combat. I will not enter into the debate as to whether they should be considered to deserve PW status or not - in most countries it is a categoric 'YES' but the US wants to view this differently for the time being. (Incidentally, how does the US view the status of its own personnel whom might be taken prisoner? Yep, I thought so....) But people who are detained in the US for whatever crimes they might be accused of are not 'usually' sent to Guantanamo Bay. So the constitution, abused and distorted as it might currently be, does appear to apply to all people in the US and not only 'citizens' of that country.
I'm not sure if you are joking, but I'll bite....
Are you suggesting that the Constitution only provides safeguards and rights for US citizens in America, and not everybody else who might be there? Can I still expect the police to provide the same level as protection to me and my property as they do for others?
If the answer is 'No', then why should anyone other than a US citizen consider complying with your laws - surely they only apply to Americans and not to the rest of us?
Er, Japan? :-)
Are you purposefully being difficult or are you an idiot?
If you follow the thread the OP pointed out that, if Microsoft uses its patent claims then it would encounter more difficulties in Europe than it would in the USA as a result. This is because, as a percentage of possible users, linux usage is more widespread in Europe than it is in the US. Secondly, various European nations and the EU itself come down pretty hard on monopolies that try to throw their weight around. Its a fact. Deal with it.
This thread is not an insult to Americans but, in this particular instance, the USA is not leading the world. There are other countries that use linux far more than it is used in the USA. That is what the OP was referring to when he said that he hoped that Americans would not be offended by his comments or, in his words, suffer from bruised egos.
You, on the otherhand, are getting embroiled in an argument about who is bigger, market shares, economic output or whatever. It has got NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. No-one, other than yourself perhaps, was even discussing that point. Now please pay attention and try to follow the discussion.
But you are ignoring the obvious. Perhaps if I rephrase it on behalf of the OP - 'Linux adoption is already way higher in European countries than in the USA'. Now it is clearly apples and apples and the OP's point is well made. And if that fact bruises Americans' egos (at least as much as it appears to have bruised yours....) then we all apologise for that but ignoring facts doesn't change things.
Not strictly true. Other US companies are supposed to pay them. Those of us who don't have software patents don't really care what Trend might think. Now, ask yourself, who is the US patent system helping? It doesn't matter a jot whether you argue the semantics of 'inventing' or 'investing', the vast majority or the people that are being penalised by this system live in N America
Why? What does FUCK mean in Danish, Norwegian, French, Italian, Thai, Loatian, Greek, Peruvian or whatever? Oh, I see! Its protecting your language against abuse. So the internet isn't really 'inter' in your view. Its yours and it must be in your language. Ah, that makes your position clear.
The reason that ICANN does not want to be under US supervision is that the US is no longer upholding common beliefs or other nation's views. As has been noted in other posts, the US is no longer respected by many other countries because of its actions in the last decade or so. Can you now see why their request is not in the least bit surprising, not quite so unreasonable?
Thank you for your well argued response. I agree with you 100% and I wish I had mod points!
Thank you for your reply - and I willingly withdraw my criticism of ACs and their ability to acknowledge when they are wrong. I stand corrected, and happily so.
I agree that the site might not be the most authoritative, but he poster simply quoted it without making any claims that it was an impeachable source. I too do not know whether the dates that are quoted are correct or even feasible but as I have no better data with which to challenge it then I must accept it at face value whilst agreeing with your own analysis.
Oh, and a Happy New Year to you..... :-)