I'm not sure how specifically this might work, but people are going to need a way to deal with the new TLDs; with lots of new suffixes, you won't be able to just remember one word and add a ".com" after it like today.
So we're going to need some kind of URL "order check," so that anybody who types in ipod.apple instead of apple.ipod (or whatever the appropriate URL ends up being) will quickly and clearly be corrected and then automatically forwarded to the most appropriate website (the legal issues surrounding a particular URL's "correctness" for a search will of course will have to be fleshed out in the design and subsequent lawyer battles, and it could even turn out to be a very powerful thing to control).
Also, I'm sure that the "correctness" algorithm would necessarily reflect the corporate philosophy of the company that creates it. To get around that, I suppose you could integrate third-party search engine results into the order checker or something like Google Suggest feature in search fields, etc.
I know it's easy to assume evilness simply because it's Microsoft, but I don't see it in this case. If a market is potentially going to be hostile to your product in the near future, it's prudent to plan for an adjustment or elimination of your product's presence in that market; if you don't, you stand to overproduce and lose a lot of money. I'd be doing the same thing.
"So, they (the Nazis) had more than a third of Congress AND the Chancellor was a Nazi. That sounds like control to me."
When the Nazis took control, Weimar was over.
"Probably like franchised people do, just in support of whatever party puts the least blame on the people (see the Eastern German Elections of 2004, 10% Nazi, 30% Communist)."
Disenfranchised people, by definition, cannot vote.
"So, 60% of the population NOT APPROVING of the president, $3.00+ for a barrel of oil, 150,000 thousand US troops in Iraq, ~13% of US Citizens living in poverty, the IAEA warning of a "global energy crisis", $412Billion budged deficit, not to mention what's going on in New Orleans constitutes "very stable and content"?"
No, it's everything you did not mention that makes the US very stable and content. There's not going to be this vaguely Naziesque revolution that you're prophesying or any political turmoil until the problems you mentioned compound tremendously.
"And please stop with the condesending nature of your posts, it isn't very becoming of you."
If you apologize for attacking my use of a difficult word and stop making things up, I will stop being condescending.
The point is that the Weimar Republic turned into NAZI Germany once the people became disenfranchised and VOTED a signle party into power.
The Nazis didn't control the Weimar Republic, and how the hell do disenfranchised people vote?
Can you please explain to me why the USA isn't capable of falling to the same problems as previous governments? What exactally makes us so invincable and right?
Who said it's impossible? It's moronically unlikely, as the country's currently very stable and content.
"The difference is when Clinton got his 2, the senate was run by republicans."
Ginsberg and Breyer were appointed during Clinton's first term, when both houses were controlled by Democrats. Please, stop making things up.
You're not understanding the difference in representation between the two systems, which is a very juvenile thing to do. I'm genuinely sorry if using a difficult word has somehow offended you.
Did you not read my post? The US government is not controlled by a single party, as the Supreme Court does not lend itself to control. Even if it were, that party derives its power from voters. This analogy to a totalitarianism is puerile.
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and thus are not beholden to political parties. If you don't agree with that, then there were several points in history when all branches were controlled by a single party (e.g. the democratic republicans and Democrats or Republicans at several times).
There were and are scary points in the US, and this isn't one of them. Repeating the old-fart "the country's going to hell" line and making up history to support it is really irresponsible and dishonest.
God, yes. The last thing we need is the world's poor getting hold of a luxury like meat. I'm personally going to blow my brains out when the first malnourished Somalian takes a bite into that sinful essence of Satan.
I approve of this, as the meats' being synthetic may remove certain taboos currently in the way of good eatins. I'll be first in line at my area's new Manburger stand.
administration of country x wants to keep some information secret.
press of country x (or, in this case, of another country) spreads that information further.
I absolutely can't see your point. Nobody's disputing that Italy is not the United States.
"So yeah, maybe this is a bad thing. Maybe this is a release of national security information and lives may be lost. Or maybe it's laziness, somebody redacting because it's easier than checking on whether or not it was OK to release."
While the information could have been redacted for any of those reasons, the Italian press does not have the professional or moral authority to declassify the information.
"Why do you assume that the journalists didn't think about that before publishing it, indeed even read through it and concluded that that was not the case?"
I'm sure that the journalists did give the concept some thought; however, they do not have the authority or expert ability to decide what classified information is acceptable to publicize.
"Anyway, it now is out in the open and I'm pretty sure you will have no problem pointing out where the information published could have serious ramifications."
I admittedly cannot; I have no experience with the subtleties involved in the classification of information and therefore will not make any decision as to what is and isn't acceptable for the public domain. The journalists who released this information do not have clearance and thus also lacks that ability, which is why I'm questioning their judgement.
"And there might not have been. Looking at what's a stake here, there might have other motives to redact some of the information and uncovering that is precisely what a free press is there for."
I'm pretty sure you will have no problem pointing out where the information published could indicate subversive motives for its classification.
There might actually have been respectable and perhaps important reasons for redacting some of that information.
Not that it matters now, but it seems a bit imprudent to fervishly publicize information about troops that could have serious ramifications for them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how specifically this might work, but people are going to need a way to deal with the new TLDs; with lots of new suffixes, you won't be able to just remember one word and add a ".com" after it like today.
So we're going to need some kind of URL "order check," so that anybody who types in ipod.apple instead of apple.ipod (or whatever the appropriate URL ends up being) will quickly and clearly be corrected and then automatically forwarded to the most appropriate website (the legal issues surrounding a particular URL's "correctness" for a search will of course will have to be fleshed out in the design and subsequent lawyer battles, and it could even turn out to be a very powerful thing to control).
Also, I'm sure that the "correctness" algorithm would necessarily reflect the corporate philosophy of the company that creates it. To get around that, I suppose you could integrate third-party search engine results into the order checker or something like Google Suggest feature in search fields, etc.
I know it's easy to assume evilness simply because it's Microsoft, but I don't see it in this case. If a market is potentially going to be hostile to your product in the near future, it's prudent to plan for an adjustment or elimination of your product's presence in that market; if you don't, you stand to overproduce and lose a lot of money. I'd be doing the same thing.
"So, they (the Nazis) had more than a third of Congress AND the Chancellor was a Nazi. That sounds like control to me."
When the Nazis took control, Weimar was over.
"Probably like franchised people do, just in support of whatever party puts the least blame on the people (see the Eastern German Elections of 2004, 10% Nazi, 30% Communist)."
Disenfranchised people, by definition, cannot vote.
"So, 60% of the population NOT APPROVING of the president, $3.00+ for a barrel of oil, 150,000 thousand US troops in Iraq, ~13% of US Citizens living in poverty, the IAEA warning of a "global energy crisis", $412Billion budged deficit, not to mention what's going on in New Orleans constitutes "very stable and content"?"
No, it's everything you did not mention that makes the US very stable and content. There's not going to be this vaguely Naziesque revolution that you're prophesying or any political turmoil until the problems you mentioned compound tremendously.
"And please stop with the condesending nature of your posts, it isn't very becoming of you."
If you apologize for attacking my use of a difficult word and stop making things up, I will stop being condescending.
The point is that the Weimar Republic turned into NAZI Germany once the people became disenfranchised and VOTED a signle party into power.
The Nazis didn't control the Weimar Republic, and how the hell do disenfranchised people vote?
Can you please explain to me why the USA isn't capable of falling to the same problems as previous governments? What exactally makes us so invincable and right?
Who said it's impossible? It's moronically unlikely, as the country's currently very stable and content.
"The difference is when Clinton got his 2, the senate was run by republicans." Ginsberg and Breyer were appointed during Clinton's first term, when both houses were controlled by Democrats. Please, stop making things up.
You're not understanding the difference in representation between the two systems, which is a very juvenile thing to do. I'm genuinely sorry if using a difficult word has somehow offended you.
Did you not read my post? The US government is not controlled by a single party, as the Supreme Court does not lend itself to control. Even if it were, that party derives its power from voters. This analogy to a totalitarianism is puerile.
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and thus are not beholden to political parties. If you don't agree with that, then there were several points in history when all branches were controlled by a single party (e.g. the democratic republicans and Democrats or Republicans at several times).
There were and are scary points in the US, and this isn't one of them. Repeating the old-fart "the country's going to hell" line and making up history to support it is really irresponsible and dishonest.
God, yes. The last thing we need is the world's poor getting hold of a luxury like meat. I'm personally going to blow my brains out when the first malnourished Somalian takes a bite into that sinful essence of Satan.
I approve of this, as the meats' being synthetic may remove certain taboos currently in the way of good eatins. I'll be first in line at my area's new Manburger stand.
Well, fuck the FCC. They don't have that power.
The first thing people do is install Kazaa or some other spyware-laden P2P application.
Are the lighting subcontractors in the Quake universe as horrible as those in the Doom 3 universe?
administration of country x wants to keep some information secret. press of country x (or, in this case, of another country) spreads that information further. I absolutely can't see your point. Nobody's disputing that Italy is not the United States.
"So yeah, maybe this is a bad thing. Maybe this is a release of national security information and lives may be lost. Or maybe it's laziness, somebody redacting because it's easier than checking on whether or not it was OK to release."
While the information could have been redacted for any of those reasons, the Italian press does not have the professional or moral authority to declassify the information.
"Why do you assume that the journalists didn't think about that before publishing it, indeed even read through it and concluded that that was not the case?" I'm sure that the journalists did give the concept some thought; however, they do not have the authority or expert ability to decide what classified information is acceptable to publicize. "Anyway, it now is out in the open and I'm pretty sure you will have no problem pointing out where the information published could have serious ramifications." I admittedly cannot; I have no experience with the subtleties involved in the classification of information and therefore will not make any decision as to what is and isn't acceptable for the public domain. The journalists who released this information do not have clearance and thus also lacks that ability, which is why I'm questioning their judgement. "And there might not have been. Looking at what's a stake here, there might have other motives to redact some of the information and uncovering that is precisely what a free press is there for." I'm pretty sure you will have no problem pointing out where the information published could indicate subversive motives for its classification.
There might actually have been respectable and perhaps important reasons for redacting some of that information. Not that it matters now, but it seems a bit imprudent to fervishly publicize information about troops that could have serious ramifications for them.