Wow, you spent a lot of time writing up an incredible strawman logic fallacy abouts cars, the alphabet and so on.
Whether it's right or wrong, the argument being made is that the US funded development of the existing internet and therefore want to retain control of it.
The argument is NOT that the US should own and control all "internets" developed throughout the world.
If you want to make a point about this, at least understand this first.
>from the point of view of an external westener >(non-European at that), the continual >anti-European sentiment from the US
Frankly I don't know what you're talking about. Anti-European sentiment in the US is far far ***FAR*** outweighed by anti-American sentiment coming from the EU. Do you HONESTLY think otherwise? Schroeder just made a public swipe at Americans. The graves of American WWII soldiers in Europe were just desecrated a few years ago. There's an entire magazine named "L'ANTI-AMERICAIN PRIMAIRE." After civilians were killed in the 9/11 attacks, European commentaries explained how they "deserved it." In the US, there's some anti-French sentiment, but that's it. And the very worst that's happened is a bunch of morons renaming a dish "freedom fries." At the same time Americans want Blair for president.
>and failure to appreciate the >excellent democracies outside of US >boarders is bloody irritating.
Again I don't know where you get this idea. That's true about American appreciation of Asia and Africa, but not elsewhere.
>but the truth is that I just want to >shake up some very narrow and >complacent attitudes. In a world like >todays', those cardboard cut-out >political views are very dangerous.
OK, I agree with you here. Things could be better. A lot of Americans have not travelled, for whatever reasons of cost, education, lack of interest, self-absorption, and so on. People do need to be shaken up a bit and awareness could be better. Nevertheless, I think you got carried away, overstated your case, and overgeneralized things.
Yes, I know what you were responding to. I also know what you claimed, "plenty of the world has equal or better free speech laws than the US - New Zealand, Australia, most of Europe."
I love Australia and New Zealand by the way... but... If you look at the libel laws in the UK and anti-defamation speech laws in France and Germany it's clear that the leading EU countries do not have "equal or better free speech."
Regardless, the FCC regulations you complained about have nothing to do with the internet.
Incidentally, if some other country wants to control something like the internet, maybe they should pitch in more on the R&D costs. The EU/US bull$hit is becoming a lot like the children's story, "The Little Red Hen."
kaffiene-- You're talking about FCC regulations of radio/tv signals. That's hardly a free speech impingement.
Just a few years ago France pressed charges against author Michael Houellebecq for merely SAYING that Islam is "the stupidiest religion." Such a case would never have even made it to court in the US.
So please get off your high horse.
Nature magazine published something on drops in temperature in Antarctica and increase in ice thickness. Some new satellite measurements were also in Science magainze showing a thickening ice cap reversing earlier perceptions of melting. The LA Times just had something a few months ago about a steady increase since 1992.
I'm not one to claim there are no climate changes going on, but I think reports about glaciers and Siberia have to be kept in perspective.
This is important information about Siberia, but keep this in perspective. Antarctica is seeing INCREASES in ice thickness, and that's where more than 90% of the world's ice exists. Another 3% is in Greenland, which means all that Siberian ice is a sliver on the global scale.
It's not evil. Person A can snail-mail letters to person B, while C is not permitted to open and read them. In fact it would be a felony in the US to open them without a court order.
How are anonymous e-transmissions any different? Why does C have a right to see everything A is saying? If someone finds a way to promote e-transmissions from a postcard-standard to an envelope-standard, then all the better.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you spent a lot of time writing up an incredible strawman logic fallacy abouts cars, the alphabet and so on. Whether it's right or wrong, the argument being made is that the US funded development of the existing internet and therefore want to retain control of it. The argument is NOT that the US should own and control all "internets" developed throughout the world. If you want to make a point about this, at least understand this first.
>from the point of view of an external westener
>(non-European at that), the continual
>anti-European sentiment from the US
Frankly I don't know what you're talking about. Anti-European sentiment in the US is far far ***FAR*** outweighed by anti-American sentiment coming from the EU. Do you HONESTLY think otherwise? Schroeder just made a public swipe at Americans. The graves of American WWII soldiers in Europe were just desecrated a few years ago. There's an entire magazine named "L'ANTI-AMERICAIN PRIMAIRE." After civilians were killed in the 9/11 attacks, European commentaries explained how they "deserved it." In the US, there's some anti-French sentiment, but that's it. And the very worst that's happened is a bunch of morons renaming a dish "freedom fries." At the same time Americans want Blair for president.
>and failure to appreciate the
>excellent democracies outside of US
>boarders is bloody irritating.
Again I don't know where you get this idea. That's true about American appreciation of Asia and Africa, but not elsewhere.
>but the truth is that I just want to
>shake up some very narrow and
>complacent attitudes. In a world like
>todays', those cardboard cut-out
>political views are very dangerous.
OK, I agree with you here. Things could be better. A lot of Americans have not travelled, for whatever reasons of cost, education, lack of interest, self-absorption, and so on. People do need to be shaken up a bit and awareness could be better. Nevertheless, I think you got carried away, overstated your case, and overgeneralized things.
Yes, I know what you were responding to. I also know what you claimed, "plenty of the world has equal or better free speech laws than the US - New Zealand, Australia, most of Europe." I love Australia and New Zealand by the way... but... If you look at the libel laws in the UK and anti-defamation speech laws in France and Germany it's clear that the leading EU countries do not have "equal or better free speech." Regardless, the FCC regulations you complained about have nothing to do with the internet. Incidentally, if some other country wants to control something like the internet, maybe they should pitch in more on the R&D costs. The EU/US bull$hit is becoming a lot like the children's story, "The Little Red Hen."
kaffiene-- You're talking about FCC regulations of radio/tv signals. That's hardly a free speech impingement. Just a few years ago France pressed charges against author Michael Houellebecq for merely SAYING that Islam is "the stupidiest religion." Such a case would never have even made it to court in the US. So please get off your high horse.
Maybe the rest of the world should have paid for the R&D that developed these things they want to control.
Nature magazine published something on drops in temperature in Antarctica and increase in ice thickness. Some new satellite measurements were also in Science magainze showing a thickening ice cap reversing earlier perceptions of melting. The LA Times just had something a few months ago about a steady increase since 1992. I'm not one to claim there are no climate changes going on, but I think reports about glaciers and Siberia have to be kept in perspective.
This is important information about Siberia, but keep this in perspective. Antarctica is seeing INCREASES in ice thickness, and that's where more than 90% of the world's ice exists. Another 3% is in Greenland, which means all that Siberian ice is a sliver on the global scale.
"All that is left is a signoff by President Bush." False. The House and Senate must both vote on the bill.
About a year ago, the US uncovered a sunken Japanese sub which contained Japanese bioweapons targetted for the west coast.
So please, if the US hadn't devastated Japan with that bomb, it was only a matter of time before it got hit.
It's not evil. Person A can snail-mail letters to person B, while C is not permitted to open and read them. In fact it would be a felony in the US to open them without a court order. How are anonymous e-transmissions any different? Why does C have a right to see everything A is saying? If someone finds a way to promote e-transmissions from a postcard-standard to an envelope-standard, then all the better.