The vast majority of software is oblivious to DST. Most of those that aren't are either operating systems (about.000001 percent of the software titles available at any one time) or rely on the OS under which they run to receive time settings. Therefore, about.0000015% of software titles will need an update. I don't think it's a problem:)
Do note the slight sarcasm in this post. It will require some efforts, but changing the calculations to determine a new start and end time for DST are so simple it's sad. Even in the financial industry, we have very little reliance on DST calculations.
DST is an excellent thing. 90% of the population does not wake with the sun, so why not alter the clock so that the sun can wake up with us?
Then name them. I'm not denying it, but you would do YOURSELF better if you backed up your argument. I was merely pointing out the fact that you provided only one small shred of proof for your comment.
We all know Haliburton benefited. We all know a number of American companies benefited. But the biggest fact that you overlooked is that the two single biggest gainers in the whole thing were Saddam himself and the Russian government. Russia, one of the three countries that threatened a veto. The other two? France and Germany BOTH sold weapons to Iraq less than two weeks before the first bombs dropped. Illegally sold weapons to Iraq against U.N. sanctions. Hmmmmmm.
See, thats information you don't get on talk radio or Fox News. You get that from reading things:)
PS - It's sad that we've gone from the US refusing ICANN's control over DNS root servers to the war in Iraq and "fuckwad" (which, by the way, serves only to make you look childish. It doesn't upset me in the least).
Okay, lets look at it from a different angle then: have there been any problems with serving up TLDs so far? None that I know of. Have there been problems with the way SLDs are registered and ultimately served up? Countless. So why take it out of the hands of an organization that has done one heck of a job so far and put it into the hands of an organization that has done little more than screw up?
And one more time, we aren't talking about how international traffic is routed. We're talking about sending a one-line query to one server to find out where to go to look up a.com,.net,.org,.edu,.etc. address. There's very little damage that can ultimately be done, largely due to the fact that it can be easily traced to verify where the server response came from.
To cast a vote is one thing. To veto the wishes of over 80% of the nations in the world takes said arrogance to a new level.
Should we have sought even more International support before going to war? Sure, war is a last resport. But we were making good on what the U.N. had voted in favor of, and what was promised in U.N. charters. If Kofi Annan had anything resembling a backbone Iraq would have been invaded multilaterally at the first moment they refused Weapons Inspectors after promising to fully cooperating the second time around.
That's not so much arrogance as it is backing up your words. That veto by three countries made otherwise agreed-upon actions seem villainous. Thus, arrogance.
You missed a very obvious point: other countries don't like the way the US appears to have a "I don't care if you don't like it my way -- we're DOING it my way". The aforementioned veto of a large majority vote wound up being the exact same attitude that we're constantly accused of. That veto was just oozing hypocrisy.
"... the U.S. government will not hand over control of the Internet to any other organisation... "
For the last time: the issue at hand is not control of the Internet. It's not about who presses the "Enter" key at the console of each root server (which, by the way, you should already know exist in countries outside the U.S.). It's not about who can register a.com address, it's not about who can access email, it's not about saying, "From here on out, all Web pages will be nothing more than plaintext." It's about who administrates the changes allowed to a single file on each root server.
European nations seem ready to jump on any chance to take power from the U.S., no matter how small the effect of said control is.
Why should ICANN not be in control? Because they're 100% more crooked than ANY U.S. Government office. Once you've had to work within the TLD/SLD industry beneath those crooks, you will permanently have their stench permeating your nostrils.
Developed IN the US. That's where the commonality ends. Henry Ford modernized the assembly line (not the automobile, by the way, as he only made a way to mass-produce them; the concept of a self-propelled vehicle for the everyday man existed with steam-powered vehicles in the mid-1800s). The US Government developed the Internet. So no, the government should not have control over Ford plants, and YES, it should maintain it's current position as the adminstrator of the Internet's root zone for DNS.
France, Germany and Russia arrogantly snubbed us, that's what.
The vote to take military action against Iraq passed by a large majority in the UN. Remember, it would have been a virtually *global* effort if not for the arrogance of three countries.
So if I invent something, and I decide that I want to place certain "rules" on it for use, then I'm arrogant and I should give it all away and let the world tell ME how to use MY invention?
I'm an advocate of free speech and open-source software, but giving away my source code is a CHOICE I make. If I want to keep it to myself and make you pay for it and follow my rules to use it, that's my prerogative. Same goes for the Internet: if we WANT to give you control, we can. But if we decide our invention is best left in the administrative hands of, well, us...then so what? The original creator of anything has first rights to do as he or she pleases with it. The Internet was born as a US-government funded project, with no financial help from the UK, Ireland, Swaziland, Uzbekistan or China. Then the US government let other nations *use* the technology. Now those nations want to usurp the administrative control of a US innovation.
Final thought: your wife gives birth to a child. Three years later, after you have done a fantastic job of raising the child, the neighbors next door, down the street and three states away want to take the child away from you so THEY can raise him how THEY want. Same. Exact. Idea.
The "Web" is a CERN concept -- that essentially wouldn't even exist without its foundation, the original "Internet", developed in the US a long, loooooooong time ago (at least from the perspective of a 25-year-old...). Oh, and DNS is American too. And so are the servers it has primarily run on for a quarter century. And so are most of the TLDs. And the SLDs. And the list of American innovations and inventions that made the "web" what it is today goes on, and on, and on.
The only one I don't want to claim is Windows.
So, one Texas man is "the majority of companies" benefiting from Oil For Food? How about "one Iraqi man" or "One son of the head of the United Nations"? I guess that means that if one guy from Texas represents most companies, then it's safe to say that most of the governments that benefited from it are not American and most of the shady dealers who benefited from it are closely related to the man in charge of it.
Poorly thought-out generalizations only make an idiot of the one who dreamed them up.
ICANN is nothing more than a beaurocracy that can't do anything but sniff it's own ass and wonder what it sat in. ICANN is ridiculously selfish with its control over the domain industry as it is. I really, REALLY don't want to see them have any more control over it than they already do. Remember, these are the same people who took about 6 years to open the registration process to other registrars besides Network Solutions/Verisign/InterNIC. $35/year down to, in some cases, less than $8.00 almost imediately after they relinquished control.
They wouldn't know a proper business decision if it tossed their collective salad. Believe me, they don't DESERVE more control.
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, RIAA sues YOU! Oh...wait...
This may be the one instance where I agree that the term "douchebag" is insightful.
I, for one, welcome our adolescent, neon-pink, band-worshipping overlords.
Right now, about 6 tanks of gas... :)
The vast majority of software is oblivious to DST. Most of those that aren't are either operating systems (about .000001 percent of the software titles available at any one time) or rely on the OS under which they run to receive time settings. Therefore, about .0000015% of software titles will need an update. I don't think it's a problem :)
Do note the slight sarcasm in this post. It will require some efforts, but changing the calculations to determine a new start and end time for DST are so simple it's sad. Even in the financial industry, we have very little reliance on DST calculations.
DST is an excellent thing. 90% of the population does not wake with the sun, so why not alter the clock so that the sun can wake up with us?
Then name them. I'm not denying it, but you would do YOURSELF better if you backed up your argument. I was merely pointing out the fact that you provided only one small shred of proof for your comment.
We all know Haliburton benefited. We all know a number of American companies benefited. But the biggest fact that you overlooked is that the two single biggest gainers in the whole thing were Saddam himself and the Russian government. Russia, one of the three countries that threatened a veto. The other two? France and Germany BOTH sold weapons to Iraq less than two weeks before the first bombs dropped. Illegally sold weapons to Iraq against U.N. sanctions. Hmmmmmm.
See, thats information you don't get on talk radio or Fox News. You get that from reading things :)
PS - It's sad that we've gone from the US refusing ICANN's control over DNS root servers to the war in Iraq and "fuckwad" (which, by the way, serves only to make you look childish. It doesn't upset me in the least).
Okay, lets look at it from a different angle then: have there been any problems with serving up TLDs so far? None that I know of. Have there been problems with the way SLDs are registered and ultimately served up? Countless. So why take it out of the hands of an organization that has done one heck of a job so far and put it into the hands of an organization that has done little more than screw up?
And one more time, we aren't talking about how international traffic is routed. We're talking about sending a one-line query to one server to find out where to go to look up a .com, .net, .org, .edu, .etc. address. There's very little damage that can ultimately be done, largely due to the fact that it can be easily traced to verify where the server response came from.
Should we have sought even more International support before going to war? Sure, war is a last resport. But we were making good on what the U.N. had voted in favor of, and what was promised in U.N. charters. If Kofi Annan had anything resembling a backbone Iraq would have been invaded multilaterally at the first moment they refused Weapons Inspectors after promising to fully cooperating the second time around.
That's not so much arrogance as it is backing up your words. That veto by three countries made otherwise agreed-upon actions seem villainous. Thus, arrogance.
You missed a very obvious point: other countries don't like the way the US appears to have a "I don't care if you don't like it my way -- we're DOING it my way". The aforementioned veto of a large majority vote wound up being the exact same attitude that we're constantly accused of. That veto was just oozing hypocrisy.
Read the article to see how stupid the writer is:
" ... the U.S. government will not hand over control of the Internet to any other organisation ... "
For the last time: the issue at hand is not control of the Internet. It's not about who presses the "Enter" key at the console of each root server (which, by the way, you should already know exist in countries outside the U.S.). It's not about who can register a .com address, it's not about who can access email, it's not about saying, "From here on out, all Web pages will be nothing more than plaintext." It's about who administrates the changes allowed to a single file on each root server.
European nations seem ready to jump on any chance to take power from the U.S., no matter how small the effect of said control is.
Why should ICANN not be in control? Because they're 100% more crooked than ANY U.S. Government office. Once you've had to work within the TLD/SLD industry beneath those crooks, you will permanently have their stench permeating your nostrils.
Developed IN the US. That's where the commonality ends. Henry Ford modernized the assembly line (not the automobile, by the way, as he only made a way to mass-produce them; the concept of a self-propelled vehicle for the everyday man existed with steam-powered vehicles in the mid-1800s). The US Government developed the Internet. So no, the government should not have control over Ford plants, and YES, it should maintain it's current position as the adminstrator of the Internet's root zone for DNS.
France, Germany and Russia arrogantly snubbed us, that's what.
The vote to take military action against Iraq passed by a large majority in the UN. Remember, it would have been a virtually *global* effort if not for the arrogance of three countries.
And you people call us arrogant.
So if I invent something, and I decide that I want to place certain "rules" on it for use, then I'm arrogant and I should give it all away and let the world tell ME how to use MY invention? I'm an advocate of free speech and open-source software, but giving away my source code is a CHOICE I make. If I want to keep it to myself and make you pay for it and follow my rules to use it, that's my prerogative. Same goes for the Internet: if we WANT to give you control, we can. But if we decide our invention is best left in the administrative hands of, well, us...then so what? The original creator of anything has first rights to do as he or she pleases with it. The Internet was born as a US-government funded project, with no financial help from the UK, Ireland, Swaziland, Uzbekistan or China. Then the US government let other nations *use* the technology. Now those nations want to usurp the administrative control of a US innovation. Final thought: your wife gives birth to a child. Three years later, after you have done a fantastic job of raising the child, the neighbors next door, down the street and three states away want to take the child away from you so THEY can raise him how THEY want. Same. Exact. Idea.
The "Web" is a CERN concept -- that essentially wouldn't even exist without its foundation, the original "Internet", developed in the US a long, loooooooong time ago (at least from the perspective of a 25-year-old...). Oh, and DNS is American too. And so are the servers it has primarily run on for a quarter century. And so are most of the TLDs. And the SLDs. And the list of American innovations and inventions that made the "web" what it is today goes on, and on, and on. The only one I don't want to claim is Windows.
So, one Texas man is "the majority of companies" benefiting from Oil For Food? How about "one Iraqi man" or "One son of the head of the United Nations"? I guess that means that if one guy from Texas represents most companies, then it's safe to say that most of the governments that benefited from it are not American and most of the shady dealers who benefited from it are closely related to the man in charge of it. Poorly thought-out generalizations only make an idiot of the one who dreamed them up.
Who ever said we had to share our Internet with the rest of the world to begin with? :)
(That's going to do wonders for the "American arrogance" that Europeans are always complaining about...)
ICANN is nothing more than a beaurocracy that can't do anything but sniff it's own ass and wonder what it sat in. ICANN is ridiculously selfish with its control over the domain industry as it is. I really, REALLY don't want to see them have any more control over it than they already do. Remember, these are the same people who took about 6 years to open the registration process to other registrars besides Network Solutions/Verisign/InterNIC. $35/year down to, in some cases, less than $8.00 almost imediately after they relinquished control.
They wouldn't know a proper business decision if it tossed their collective salad. Believe me, they don't DESERVE more control.