The authority of each link in the chain of command comes from the link(s) above it. The Secretary of State is empowered by the President, speaks with his authority, and can legally issue orders as though he were the President of the United States. The only instance where he doesn't have that authority is when the President overrules him.
Do you have some kind of source to back up this fanciful half-remembrance, which any military member will tell you is false?
Are you, perchance, not a Native English Speaker? If that's the case, I should apoligize for not being clearer. If you are you may as well not read any further, and not bother to respond, since you're not going to listen to a word I'm saying in the first place.
The United States is a Sovereign Nation, whose lands and policies are administered by the United States. It would make a lot of people very happy if the resources of the United States were administered by the UN, because the United States affects the entire world, and has a presence in almost every country.
The internet is a worldwide communications platform, whose central hardware is owned and administered by the United States. It would make a lot of people very happy if the hardware controlling the internet were turned over to the UN, because the internet affects the entire world, and has a presence in almost every country.
Nevertheless, the United States is not going to turn over sovereign control to the UN, nor is it any more reasonable to expect to United States to turn over control of the internet.
The Hardware, a few decades-old mainframes, certainly aren't too expensive to buy. The ability to administer the entire internet is much more valuable an Asset, and likely one no other country could afford to buy. Expecting the US to merely give that away is insanity.
As of yet, you've given no reason for that expectation except some misguided notion of "fairness."
The United States was created over 30 years ago, and has clearly grown out of control, and doesn't have much to do with the original (At least, as much as the Internet has grown out of control \ doesn't have much to do with the original, I'd dispute those points, but mocking them is more effective). Obviously, by your logic, there's no reason why we should continue to have control over it.
Other countries are piggy-backing off the hardware set up by the United States and (to a lesser extent) Europe. If the rest of the world wants control over that hardware, they should either offer to buy it, or create their own. Other countries should trust the US because that's what they signed up for when they joined our internet.
"I fail to undestand why creating something gives you the right to manage it 30 years later when that thing clearly went out of control (Internet is, clearly, out of control, refer to RIAA issues for more informations) and when it's got not much to do with the original. Or maybe only Austrians should be allowed to use E=MC^2 ?"
Yes, you're clearly right. Let's immediately give sovereign control of the United States to the UN.
----
The US doesn't -need- any arguements to keep it the internet in it's control. The UN hasn't given anything besides "we want it" or "We don't trust the US." Which is countered by the US saying "We have it" and "We don't trust any of -you- to run it either."
You're not too familiar with the history of the situation are you? The was US strongly opposed putting Libya up as the chair of the Human Rights commission.
The US did -not- agree. The only committee where the US has Veto power is the Security Council.
You seem to know a little about Satellite communications, but your conclusions are wrong. Power level and data rate only matter inasmuch as what's necessary to get a good Bit Error Rate. On a clear day, beaming up to a geosynchronous satellite, (22,300 Miles up) only about 2 Watts are necessary.
In space, where we don't have the atmosphere to plow through, or local weather conditions, etc. - Beaming to Mars with a smaller atmosphere and almost nonexistent weather, the output power isn't a problem. Yes, even to Mars.
the TSAT system is a large, multi-purpose switch, designed to be a switching station. All it does (or what any comm satellite does for that matter) - is accept information coming into it on one frequency, and broadcast it on another frequency. If it was built with the software to do it, it'd be fairly simple to Jury-rig a switch capable of receiving the signal you send, and repeating it towards the Mars lander (or wherever you wanted to go) on the frequency you want. It's not something you'd want to do on a regular basis on equipment not designed for it (Hence what TSAT and similar systems were created) - but it's possible.
Again, the only barrier to this being done is that little bit of forethought on NASA's part. The technology is there.
It'd do more than make boats and planes have a hard time.
Remember all those Cesium clocks broadcasting timing down from the heavens? Wanna know what happens when all the master timing Banks and other institutions who don't see a cost-benefit for having back-up master clocks goes away?
GPS isn't just coordination, it provides incredibly accurate, standard, timing to the world, practically for free.
the US banking system, for one, relies on it almost entirely. Similar to the programming faults that made Y2K such a big problem, removing that timing reference would make nearly every financial institution in the US crash immediately, and for a prolonged period of time.
Ehh, not so much. All you really need to make a relay is a few capabilities:
1. Antennas, Preferably ones you can point in the direction you want. Not so hard in space given the (usually) low loss of sending signals through space, and the wide dispersal. Built into every Satellite
2. Transmit\Recieve: Again, assuming you can contact it, and it can contact you, also built into every Satellite.
3. The ability to change transmit\recieve frequencies: Might not have been included on some of the older or more specialized Satellites, but certainly possible these days.
Far from being impossible, assuming a little forethought on NASA's part, it's probably true.
Slashdot Mirror
Pfft, I invoke Godwin's law!
You lose!
The authority of each link in the chain of command comes from the link(s) above it. The Secretary of State is empowered by the President, speaks with his authority, and can legally issue orders as though he were the President of the United States. The only instance where he doesn't have that authority is when the President overrules him.
Do you have some kind of source to back up this fanciful half-remembrance, which any military member will tell you is false?
Except that Gravity moves faster than c, which isn't possible for waves and particles in conventional physics...
-Someone- is going to have control
The UN is an unacceptable agency to hold control.
Ergo, the existing control of the United States is preferable, and logical.
I hope you realize the irony that just seeps out of the pores of your post...
91
92
93
94
95
5 years.
Are you, perchance, not a Native English Speaker? If that's the case, I should apoligize for not being clearer. If you are you may as well not read any further, and not bother to respond, since you're not going to listen to a word I'm saying in the first place.
The United States is a Sovereign Nation, whose lands and policies are administered by the United States. It would make a lot of people very happy if the resources of the United States were administered by the UN, because the United States affects the entire world, and has a presence in almost every country.
The internet is a worldwide communications platform, whose central hardware is owned and administered by the United States. It would make a lot of people very happy if the hardware controlling the internet were turned over to the UN, because the internet affects the entire world, and has a presence in almost every country.
Nevertheless, the United States is not going to turn over sovereign control to the UN, nor is it any more reasonable to expect to United States to turn over control of the internet.
The Hardware, a few decades-old mainframes, certainly aren't too expensive to buy. The ability to administer the entire internet is much more valuable an Asset, and likely one no other country could afford to buy. Expecting the US to merely give that away is insanity.
As of yet, you've given no reason for that expectation except some misguided notion of "fairness."
The United States was created over 30 years ago, and has clearly grown out of control, and doesn't have much to do with the original (At least, as much as the Internet has grown out of control \ doesn't have much to do with the original, I'd dispute those points, but mocking them is more effective). Obviously, by your logic, there's no reason why we should continue to have control over it.
Other countries are piggy-backing off the hardware set up by the United States and (to a lesser extent) Europe. If the rest of the world wants control over that hardware, they should either offer to buy it, or create their own. Other countries should trust the US because that's what they signed up for when they joined our internet.
"I fail to undestand why creating something gives you the right to manage it 30 years later when that thing clearly went out of control (Internet is, clearly, out of control, refer to RIAA issues for more informations) and when it's got not much to do with the original. Or maybe only Austrians should be allowed to use E=MC^2 ?"
Yes, you're clearly right. Let's immediately give sovereign control of the United States to the UN.
----
The US doesn't -need- any arguements to keep it the internet in it's control. The UN hasn't given anything besides "we want it" or "We don't trust the US." Which is countered by the US saying "We have it" and "We don't trust any of -you- to run it either."
You're not too familiar with the history of the situation are you? The was US strongly opposed putting Libya up as the chair of the Human Rights commission.
The US did -not- agree. The only committee where the US has Veto power is the Security Council.
Well, yes. Except for the lying about it part.
Those soldiers just got sentenced if you were wondering.
Both of the replies to this were labeled trolls, and I'm wondering why..
They're both right, Libya has an outspoken record of human rights abuses FAR more severe than anything the US has done.
Yes, we're going to put the UN in charge of the Internet.
The organization that put Libya in charge of human rights. Yes, Brilliant.
*Sigh*
You seem to know a little about Satellite communications, but your conclusions are wrong. Power level and data rate only matter inasmuch as what's necessary to get a good Bit Error Rate. On a clear day, beaming up to a geosynchronous satellite, (22,300 Miles up) only about 2 Watts are necessary.
In space, where we don't have the atmosphere to plow through, or local weather conditions, etc. - Beaming to Mars with a smaller atmosphere and almost nonexistent weather, the output power isn't a problem. Yes, even to Mars.
the TSAT system is a large, multi-purpose switch, designed to be a switching station. All it does (or what any comm satellite does for that matter) - is accept information coming into it on one frequency, and broadcast it on another frequency. If it was built with the software to do it, it'd be fairly simple to Jury-rig a switch capable of receiving the signal you send, and repeating it towards the Mars lander (or wherever you wanted to go) on the frequency you want. It's not something you'd want to do on a regular basis on equipment not designed for it (Hence what TSAT and similar systems were created) - but it's possible.
Again, the only barrier to this being done is that little bit of forethought on NASA's part. The technology is there.
GPS doesn't even spew coordinates...
Learn how it works, then read the replies I gave the other nonbelievers
It'd do more than make boats and planes have a hard time.
Remember all those Cesium clocks broadcasting timing down from the heavens? Wanna know what happens when all the master timing Banks and other institutions who don't see a cost-benefit for having back-up master clocks goes away?
Very bad things.
GPS isn't just coordination, it provides incredibly accurate, standard, timing to the world, practically for free.
the US banking system, for one, relies on it almost entirely. Similar to the programming faults that made Y2K such a big problem, removing that timing reference would make nearly every financial institution in the US crash immediately, and for a prolonged period of time.
And that's just the biggest vulnerability...
They can't turn off the civilian channel.
Not without making all those Y2K nightmare fears come true.
Ehh, not so much. All you really need to make a relay is a few capabilities:
1. Antennas, Preferably ones you can point in the direction you want. Not so hard in space given the (usually) low loss of sending signals through space, and the wide dispersal. Built into every Satellite
2. Transmit\Recieve: Again, assuming you can contact it, and it can contact you, also built into every Satellite.
3. The ability to change transmit\recieve frequencies: Might not have been included on some of the older or more specialized Satellites, but certainly possible these days.
Far from being impossible, assuming a little forethought on NASA's part, it's probably true.
We had complete, unfettered access to Iraq way before we invaded.
Then you go and say -we- deliberately misinterpret intelligence reports..
No, it didn't.
The US signed Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction and thePROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS OR OTHER GASES, AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE
Both of which allow having biological agents for peaceful and protective purposes. I.E. Exactly what the US is doing here.
What treaty, exactly, is the US violating here?
Biological agents are allowed under every treaty the US has ever signed for "peaceful and protective purposes"
Which describes this exactly.
Please don't comment while drunk.
Or stoned.
Or on whatever it is you're on.
Except Saddam signed a treaty saying he wouldn't have them...
Sorta've like how a convicted felon can't own guns legally.
golfing is all about networking, man.