All men are equal...... but some are more equal than others...
Who the hell modded you up? A nation is *NOT* an individual with equal rights among other nations. Are you telling me that you think the government of NK or IRAN will vote in the best interests of each and every individual citizen?
So logically, you also agree that neo-Nazis, KKK members, and violent religious fundamentalists should be denied voting rights. These people also suck. Do we really want the KKK to have a say in our laws? You say this in the same sentence you try to defend your "democratic" ideals. You make me sick.
Are you mentally retarded? The KKK and Neo-Nazis don't limit the liberties of other people and if they do, they are punished. The nations that the UN gives voting rights to deny those very rights and essential liberties to their own people
I do not consider north korea to be equal to south korea nor do I believe that nations have "essential liberties" that need to be defended nor do I believe that they should have equal voting rights about how DNS should be managed. I do not trust a communist dictatorship like NK does not vote on behalf of its individual citizens. I do trust a Neo-Nazi to vote on behalf of his individual self.
Personally, I have no problem with internationalising DNS management to a committee of free countries.
After seeing Glloway on real time with bill maher, I'm not suprised. His use of snide irrelevant sarcastic remarks to divert attention reminds me of Michael Moore's rants on his blog.
Also, does he really have to bring up "it's all about the jooos" every 15 minutes?
Golloway debates like a 15 year old and a retarded one at that.
Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.
Well actually, no, for the same reason many criminals have certain freedoms taken away from them. The internet is the greatest vehicle for free speech and exchange of ideas ever invented. I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY nation should have a democractic say in the administration of the internet -- including countries that already, today, censor the internet for the 'good of their citizens'. I wonder, what other mechanisms of control would you like to see bestowed upon these other nations?
And therein lies the problem. If other nations do set up their own root servers, the Internet will be fractured and cease to be the useful network it is today. The whole point of the Internet is that it's run by rough consensus. You can't deny other nations a voice and still expect them to participate on your terms, it's an international resource that only has the value it has because it is singular.
Fractured but if there is a need for interaction it will happen. The internet is already a sparse network of sub-networks. If there's a will there's a way.
The Internet as it is today is controlled, you just turn a blind eye because you are the ones controlling it.
Oh? Care to give an example of how the way its being controlled/managed limits your freedom of speech and expression? Or by "control" are you talking about the fact that it's being managed by a group who make logistical decisions that I could care less about (like whether.xxx or.goatsex should be added as a TLD).
Seriously, the US government has been trying to erode protections for online privacy and information access for years, why does he think the UN would be any more dangerous?
You have got to be bloody kidding. Well, I guess you're right. Other countries haven't had this "erosion of protections" because they NEVER HAD THOSE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. But let's not forget that Bush=Hiter, US=evil blah blah.
Do you really want Iran, North Korea and China having a say in how DNS is administered? Yeah, let's give countries that filter words like "democracy" and "tiananmen square" and jail anti-government bloggers a say. What a joke.
The UN is a forum for international diplomacy. It is NOT a world government. If countries want to control the flow of information, they can setup their own DNS servers. They won't ofcourse, because noone will use something that's controlled -- that is why they're trying to subvert the system everyone is already using.
Yeah, cause if islamic fundamentalism continues to spread across the world, we all know that people like you and me who want to explore and understand the universe will be free to do so. If the christian induced dark ages in europe promoted so much science and understsanding, why can't islamism? It's not like it's the fastest growing religion (1billion and counting) or anything.
Freedom, liberty whereever it has been seeded has always spured development (look at south korea vs north, pre war japan vs post war etc).
Who decides what countries should have a say and what countries shouldn't? Where to draw the line of freedom? Many countries have different versions of freedom and who is going to take responsibility of choosing the countries that are or are not free?
The freedom I'm talking about in reference to this issue is freedom of speech. There's not too many widely differing definitions of that.
In the end our discussion is moot anyway, because what the EU is trying to do (and what has been pointed out by others in this discussion) is to set up a multilateral body to control the root to prevent the countries with an arguably lesser amount of freedom for its citizens to create their own, censored root servers.
That worries me greatly. If creating a multilateral body to control the root servers convinces countries that want to control the flow of information on the internet to not create their own set of root servers then that indicates to me that those countries believe they can control the flow of information using the multilateral body. That is something that can't be allowed to happen IMHO.
If the US pulls the plug on France that cuts off France from the rest of the net even if French citizens can still reach French sites. It wouldn't just affect the one country, which is part of the point.
If (and that's a big "if") ICANN does do that, all other countries can, if they choose to, redirect the DNS queries to the french servers.
I have no doubt that there'll also be search engines that can bring up IP linked results from a domain query (not sure if google that already do that but wouldn't be suprised if they do).
"The internet is the greatest vehicle for free thoughts and free ideas." and yet: "Why on earth would you want to give countries like Iran, China and South Korea a say?"
Now observe therein the answer to your own (and those of many others) question.
Don't be an idiot. Those countries are free to do and say whatever they want but they should not "have a say" as in, be in control, of a vehicle of free speech which they neither own or intend to keep free.
I admit it was a poor choice of words on my part but don't tell me you didn't understand what I meant.
to transfer control from one country to all countries (or, strictly, an agency representing all/most countries).
The internet is the greatest vehicle for free thoughts and free ideas. This is incompatible with many governments who you would want to give representation over how the internet is run. To me, that is simply not acceptable. No country (especially corrupt totalitarian states) has a right to have a say in the internet is run. I don't care if they're in the UN club or not.
Why on earth would you want to give countries like Iran, China and South Korea a say? They're already limiting internet access for their own citizens, let's not allow the UN to elect them to the "international internet governence and taxation council" shall we?
that the US won't pull the plug on, say, Venezeula.
If Venuzuela is worried about their government web sites going down they can easily force all their ISPs to reroute all DNS requests to government websites to the appropriate servers.
Re:Does anyone else find myth busters annoying?
on
Archimedes Death Ray
·
· Score: 1
Yeah I agree with what you and a few other people have said. It's a fun show to watch but there are moments when their scientific ineptitude makes you just want to change the channel.
Does anyone else find myth busters annoying?
on
Archimedes Death Ray
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They run these unscientific experiments (most involving explosions or decaying corpses) and then "conclusively bust" myths. Some experiments are fun and interesting, but most don't deserve the hard conclusions they assign.
It's really annoying when people take accept their "proofs" as proofs.
.NET makes it simple to interface with existing libraries written in C which, IMHO, makes it a more natural fit with Linux. C# applications can easily take advantage of existing libraries (GTK etc) whilst Java requires more effort (to force you to be "pure" and cross platform).
Sometimes having ease and flexibility is more important than being cross platform.
Besides, most libraries linux C# applications p/invoke are source-portable so the C# application itself will be cross platform as long as you have the platform specific binaries for the native libraries you pinvoked. The binaries you distribute won't necessarily be cross platform but for desktop applications, that's not really a big issue.
Following the video ipod's release
on
Video iPod Oct 12?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Apple will release a viPod shuffle which will support automagic shuffling of your videos and, to make smaller it easier to use, no screen.
MFC is a set of C++ wrappers around Win32. They were NOT used in J++. J++ provided java wrappers (using Microsoft's Java-Native/C API named J/Direct) around Win32 and *NOT* around C++ classes. It's actually pretty hard to access C++ from Java (even with J/Direct). Microsoft did not expose MFC in J++.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you telling me that your congresscritters are voting with the best interests of you and other citizens of US?
Congressman are elected brainiac.
Has your argument turned from democracy for every nation to democracy doesn't work?
All men are equal
Who the hell modded you up? A nation is *NOT* an individual with equal rights among other nations. Are you telling me that you think the government of NK or IRAN will vote in the best interests of each and every individual citizen?
So logically, you also agree that neo-Nazis, KKK members, and violent religious fundamentalists should be denied voting rights. These people also suck. Do we really want the KKK to have a say in our laws? You say this in the same sentence you try to defend your "democratic" ideals. You make me sick.
Are you mentally retarded? The KKK and Neo-Nazis don't limit the liberties of other people and if they do, they are punished. The nations that the UN gives voting rights to deny those very rights and essential liberties to their own people
I do not consider north korea to be equal to south korea nor do I believe that nations have "essential liberties" that need to be defended nor do I believe that they should have equal voting rights about how DNS should be managed. I do not trust a communist dictatorship like NK does not vote on behalf of its individual citizens. I do trust a Neo-Nazi to vote on behalf of his individual self.
Personally, I have no problem with internationalising DNS management to a committee of free countries.
Oh right. Taliban controlled Afghanistan was "soveriegn" and is better off than it is today.
I bet those pictures of Iraqi voters holding photos of Bush must really twist your panties.
After seeing Glloway on real time with bill maher, I'm not suprised. His use of snide irrelevant sarcastic remarks to divert attention reminds me of Michael Moore's rants on his blog.
Also, does he really have to bring up "it's all about the jooos" every 15 minutes?
Golloway debates like a 15 year old and a retarded one at that.
Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.
Well actually, no, for the same reason many criminals have certain freedoms taken away from them. The internet is the greatest vehicle for free speech and exchange of ideas ever invented. I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY nation should have a democractic say in the administration of the internet -- including countries that already, today, censor the internet for the 'good of their citizens'. I wonder, what other mechanisms of control would you like to see bestowed upon these other nations?
And therein lies the problem. If other nations do set up their own root servers, the Internet will be fractured and cease to be the useful network it is today. The whole point of the Internet is that it's run by rough consensus. You can't deny other nations a voice and still expect them to participate on your terms, it's an international resource that only has the value it has because it is singular.
Fractured but if there is a need for interaction it will happen. The internet is already a sparse network of sub-networks. If there's a will there's a way.
The Internet as it is today is controlled, you just turn a blind eye because you are the ones controlling it.
Oh? Care to give an example of how the way its being controlled/managed limits your freedom of speech and expression? Or by "control" are you talking about the fact that it's being managed by a group who make logistical decisions that I could care less about (like whether
Seriously, the US government has been trying to erode protections for online privacy and information access for years, why does he think the UN would be any more dangerous?
You have got to be bloody kidding. Well, I guess you're right. Other countries haven't had this "erosion of protections" because they NEVER HAD THOSE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. But let's not forget that Bush=Hiter, US=evil blah blah.
Do you really want Iran, North Korea and China having a say in how DNS is administered? Yeah, let's give countries that filter words like "democracy" and "tiananmen square" and jail anti-government bloggers a say. What a joke.
The UN is a forum for international diplomacy. It is NOT a world government. If countries want to control the flow of information, they can setup their own DNS servers. They won't ofcourse, because noone will use something that's controlled -- that is why they're trying to subvert the system everyone is already using.
Yeah, either that or you're in the southern hemisphere.
I cool, can I play Michael Moore too?
The first thing I thought of after reading the title was disenfranchised black people in new orleans
(I'm not black)
Yeah, cause if islamic fundamentalism continues to spread across the world, we all know that people like you and me who want to explore and understand the universe will be free to do so. If the christian induced dark ages in europe promoted so much science and understsanding, why can't islamism? It's not like it's the fastest growing religion (1billion and counting) or anything.
Freedom, liberty whereever it has been seeded has always spured development (look at south korea vs north, pre war japan vs post war etc).
Humans in space inspire. Inspiration drives people into sciences and engineering and forces politicians to fund more space ventures.
doh. bloody good point. i forgot about that.
Who decides what countries should have a say and what countries shouldn't? Where to draw the line of freedom? Many countries have different versions of freedom and who is going to take responsibility of choosing the countries that are or are not free?
The freedom I'm talking about in reference to this issue is freedom of speech. There's not too many widely differing definitions of that.
In the end our discussion is moot anyway, because what the EU is trying to do (and what has been pointed out by others in this discussion) is to set up a multilateral body to control the root to prevent the countries with an arguably lesser amount of freedom for its citizens to create their own, censored root servers.
That worries me greatly. If creating a multilateral body to control the root servers convinces countries that want to control the flow of information on the internet to not create their own set of root servers then that indicates to me that those countries believe they can control the flow of information using the multilateral body. That is something that can't be allowed to happen IMHO.
If the US pulls the plug on France that cuts off France from the rest of the net even if French citizens can still reach French sites. It wouldn't just affect the one country, which is part of the point.
If (and that's a big "if") ICANN does do that, all other countries can, if they choose to, redirect the DNS queries to the french servers.
I have no doubt that there'll also be search engines that can bring up IP linked results from a domain query (not sure if google that already do that but wouldn't be suprised if they do).
"The internet is the greatest vehicle for free thoughts and free ideas."
and yet:
"Why on earth would you want to give countries like Iran, China and South Korea a say?"
Now observe therein the answer to your own (and those of many others) question.
Don't be an idiot. Those countries are free to do and say whatever they want but they should not "have a say" as in, be in control, of a vehicle of free speech which they neither own or intend to keep free.
I admit it was a poor choice of words on my part but don't tell me you didn't understand what I meant.
to transfer control from one country to all countries (or, strictly, an agency representing all/most countries).
The internet is the greatest vehicle for free thoughts and free ideas. This is incompatible with many governments who you would want to give representation over how the internet is run. To me, that is simply not acceptable. No country (especially corrupt totalitarian states) has a right to have a say in the internet is run. I don't care if they're in the UN club or not.
Why on earth would you want to give countries like Iran, China and South Korea a say? They're already limiting internet access for their own citizens, let's not allow the UN to elect them to the "international internet governence and taxation council" shall we?
that the US won't pull the plug on, say, Venezeula.
If Venuzuela is worried about their government web sites going down they can easily force all their ISPs to reroute all DNS requests to government websites to the appropriate servers.
Yeah I agree with what you and a few other people have said. It's a fun show to watch but there are moments when their scientific ineptitude makes you just want to change the channel.
They run these unscientific experiments (most involving explosions or decaying corpses) and then "conclusively bust" myths. Some experiments are fun and interesting, but most don't deserve the hard conclusions they assign.
It's really annoying when people take accept their "proofs" as proofs.
It's the BBC. I expected no less from them. I expect to see this story propagated to the media in other countries like AU and NZ now.
OMFG, the US is the sheriff of the intaarweb!!!!! ChimpyMcMcBusHitlerBurton controls the internet!
Java takes far longer to code and is often a little unintuitive
Depends greatly on whether or not you've studied computer science...
.NET makes it simple to interface with existing libraries written in C which, IMHO, makes it a more natural fit with Linux. C# applications can easily take advantage of existing libraries (GTK etc) whilst Java requires more effort (to force you to be "pure" and cross platform).
Sometimes having ease and flexibility is more important than being cross platform.
Besides, most libraries linux C# applications p/invoke are source-portable so the C# application itself will be cross platform as long as you have the platform specific binaries for the native libraries you pinvoked. The binaries you distribute won't necessarily be cross platform but for desktop applications, that's not really a big issue.
Apple will release a viPod shuffle which will support automagic shuffling of your videos and, to make smaller it easier to use, no screen.
No words yet on the release date of emacsPod.
MFC is a set of C++ wrappers around Win32. They were NOT used in J++. J++ provided java wrappers (using Microsoft's Java-Native/C API named J/Direct) around Win32 and *NOT* around C++ classes. It's actually pretty hard to access C++ from Java (even with J/Direct). Microsoft did not expose MFC in J++.
The fact that Microsoft were including GDI and MFC code in their JDK and not other sections of code
*SIGH* Do you even know what MFC is?
3) they are being detained in an on going war (the critics love to point out that the wars in afghanistan and iraq hasn't ended).
I think you're familiar with POWs?