Of course it is. After all I wanted to show that this kind of reasoning, if you even want to call it reasoning, is silly and stupid.
"So yeah the Americans invented it. Let's give the ones who did so some gratitude. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they should have all control over it. It is global."
I can absolutely agree this far.
"However, I don't particularly see anything wrong at the moment with the situation and I do see a lot of problems that would come with a changing of hands. So there is nothing to fix. Let's just leave things alone."
Here I have to absolutely disagree. The internet is a key part of the infrastructure of many countries and no matter if you believe the current situation is broken or not, countries that have a key part of their infrastructure will consider this situation broken.
So I don't really think the question is if the situation will change, but how it will change and how things will be organized.
In my opinion these are the really interesting question, but unfortunately the debate on/. seems to be about on side "We invented it, it's ours, my precious" and on the other side "US is the evil".
Well, Bush, who wants to keep control over this "international corporation" and the rest of the world, who wants to end the US control about this "international corporation" disagree with you.
I'd be real interested to hear how the UN has helped with the "war on terror"? It seems to me that the "war on terror" has continued despite the UN's attempted interference at every turn.
What about Afgahnistan? What about the crucial role the UN plays now in Iraq, something the current US administration urged the UN to do after everything was going downhill there. How about the German soldiers patrolling off the African coast as part of the war on terror and iirc they do so under an UN mandate.
And where exactly did the UN interfere?
About Iraq, I'm sorry, but acting as if the US was acting on behalf of the UN, when the US clearly did act against the expressed will of the vast majority of the UN member states and against the expressed will of the majority of the UN security council, which is after all the council that is to decide if Iraq really is, or rather was, not complying with UN resolutions, is simply silly.
After all, we Europeans designed and built it!!!!1111!!!111 And while we are at it, would you please stop using telephones, computers, automobiles and TVs!!!1111
Thank you, Your European friends!!
P.S.: China insists on the US not using explosives and paper!!!!111
Agreed. Now find me a "time of need" in this situation. All I see is a bunch of member countries who want control of the toys, and have no clear direction on why or how they need them.
Bull. This is in fact a very simple matter. The internet is now a key part of the infrastructure of many countries and no matter if you like it or not, nations don't like it when a critical part of their infrastructure is controlled by a foreign government. The US wouldn't like and accept such a situation and other nations won't either, so the interesting question is not if this situation will change, but how it will change.
If they're going to try to "force" the US, I can certainly see the US resigning. The UN has been nothing but a pain for the longest time, passing resolutions that no one but the US is supposed to carry out. Then when we do carry out UN resolutions, we're censured as being an "empire builders" or "warmongerers". Isn't it nice that so many countries can tell us what to do while they sit on their high horses?
The next natural step after resigning would be to setup defensive positions in case someone wants to take it farther than that. I'm hoping that the member countries would be smart enough to leave things alone and recognize that a US resignation would be their own fault.
I know that people like you don't want to hear it, but being part of the UN is of great benefit to the US (do you really think the "war against terror" can be won by the US alone for example) so the US leaving the UN, thereby destroying the international system would be a very stupid move indeed, to put it mildly.
Btw., I'd really like to hear some examples of the US carrying out UN resolutions and then getting blamed for it. Thanks in advance.
I hope that was sarcasm? Because you may be surprised at what you find in the history of the internet's invention.
Hihi, watching people like you rave about how the US invented the internet is just to funny.
Why? First because it is pretty senseless. So what if they did? What follows from it? That only the US should be able to use the inernet? Well, have fun then, cause a global network is sure going to be useful when it's not global.
And what about other inventions? How about the US not using any technology that wasn't invented in the US? Wouldn't that be fun?
Second, what about the www? It sure wasn't invented in the US, but in Europe? So what follows from this? You guys keep the internet while we take the www? How utterly silly, childish and senseless.
"But we did create the internet, and with the intention of improving our military and then later our civilian communication. It is great that we allowed it to be a globel network"
Well, as the world wide web was created in Europe, how about you keep the internet and we keep the world wide web. Deal?;-D
Let's keep it with the US: - The one nation in history using nuclear weapons on civilians. - The nation that toppled the democratically elected government in Chile, to replace it with a dictatorship that killed thousands. - The nation that did the same thing as above in many, many, other countries. - The nation that sold Saddam WMDs and helped him to use them against Iran. - The nation that is currently engaging in an illegal war in Iraq, started under false pretenses, that has already killed tensofthousands. - The nation that doesn't grant the most basic human rights to it's POW.
Needless to say that you should read the actual interview, as things are a bit more complex than what the/. blurb to this story or the zdnet article want to make you believe.
Not that I disagree with you on being critical about the US, but:
"Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc... all of them are demonised for even thinking about developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. There's outrage if they hint that it's okay to have them."
And it's good that there is outrage and there should be outrage. Maybe I misunderand you, but are you trying to imply that because the US might to bad things it would only be fair if those states you mentioned were also allowed to do bad things? Seriously, I have a hard time understanding this kind of logic.
the contracts have caused major concern. 'It raises a serious question over how the US is going to demonstrate its compliance with obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention...
if it brings these tanks online," says Alan Pearson, programme director for biological and chemical weapons at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington DC. "If one can grow the Sterne strain in these units, one could also grow the Ames strain, which is quite lethal."
Oops, is that your whole point going down the gully I see here?
"What would happen to the Biological Weapons Convention if other countries followed suit and built large biological production facilities at secretive military bases known for weapons testing?"
How does this translate to: The US wants to build biological weapons with this stuff? Oh, it doesn't...
"It's not just that they *aren't* going to do anything evil with it, but rather, can't. If you read the article, you can see that it's both non-infectious, and can be used for vaccination. Being concerned when someone buys a gun is understandable. Being concerned when they buy an airsoft is much less so."
On the issue of RTFA: 1. It's funny that you on one hand claim that the article claims that US wants to build weapons with it, on the other you tell others to read the article, as it showed that this stuff can't be used for weapons production. 2. From TFA: "It raises a serious question over how the US is going to demonstrate its compliance with obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention if it brings these tanks online," says Alan Pearson, programme director for biological and chemical weapons at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington DC. "If one can grow the Sterne strain in these units, one could also grow the Ames strain, which is quite lethal."
"The whole argument just smacks of fearmongering, and throws the word anthrax around as much as possible."
As this is about anthrax, I have a hard time seeing how they could have avoided using this word.
"They're not creating a biological weapons lab, just procuring enough to probably use for threat assessment of biological weapon dispersion."
First off, nobody claimed they wanted to build biological weapons with this stuff, so your whole point simply amounts to a strawman arument. Second, it is amazing that you do seem to know exactly what they want to use this stuff for, as this is certainly not public knowledgd. Now I agree with you that this is probably what they want to do, however, I have no way of veryfing this.
"It's not going to be used for weaponry, and the US has enough nuclear firepower to not need biological weaponry, which are much more unpredictable in effect, and less reliable."
Again, stop the strawman arguments, nobody claimed they were going to use it for weapons. As the article clearly states, the problem is that this equipment could be used to make weapons or at least produce anthrax strains that could be used in weapons. This isn't so much a problem because people think the US will do this, but because the US has signed international treaties that might be in conflict with what the US military is doing.
And even if it is not breaking these agreements, I'm sure you will agree that the signal it sends to other nations, namely that it is possible to aquire this kind of equipment if you only tell everyone that you are not going to do anything evil with it, is troublesome.
"Um, well, I might be in a minority there, but I find KDE (or Gnome for that matter) to be much more comfortable to use than the Apple UI."
Minority? Certainly. But you are definately not alone in thinking this way.
This however goes against the/. mantra that OSX is a gift from the gods and without fail, so expect to be modded down if anyone actually bothers to moderate this stupid non-story, that is.
Don't get me wrong, I do like a lot about OSX, I think it makes a fine desktop and I can definately see the attraction, however, I prefer an other desktop, that's all.
And while we are at it, there is of course kat, which is roughly the kde equivalent to beagle right now. Kat will see a major redisign in the next version according to the developers and will work together with kiolucene.
One word: Idiot! Why? Not because you might not be right about some feature missing, but for taking out one missing feature and bashing a whole desktop and in fact OSS in general based on it.
You might be surprised, but even RTFA doesn't help this time around, as/. just copy and pasted the blurb from the register.
But you are right, it doesn't make sense at all of course. I think one can assume that they wanted to talk about google advertising on aol, not on yahoo.
Afaik they are still copyrighted (at least most of them).
However, google does seem to have contracts with certain libraries to scan their books, so they are not just randomly grabbing copyrighted material and scanning it. If this is enough to make what they are doing legal is a question I simply can't answer, but suits like the one at hand should clear this situation up.
Finally, I can understand that some people find what google is doing problematic, on the other hand I really think that it is extremely usefull, so I hope that the issues will be resolved in a way that addresses the problems, but still makes it possible for people to use this great service.
Slashdot Mirror
http://micke.hallendal.net/archives/2005/10/gtk-ma cosx.htmli mp-on-os-x/
http://gimpfoo.de/2005/10/06/an-early-glance-at-g
Ok, ok, it's not quite there yet, but there seems to be a lot of progress lately.
"your argument is just as silly and stupid"
/. seems to be about on side "We invented it, it's ours, my precious" and on the other side "US is the evil".
Of course it is. After all I wanted to show that this kind of reasoning, if you even want to call it reasoning, is silly and stupid.
"So yeah the Americans invented it. Let's give the ones who did so some gratitude. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they should have all control over it. It is global."
I can absolutely agree this far.
"However, I don't particularly see anything wrong at the moment with the situation and I do see a lot of problems that would come with a changing of hands. So there is nothing to fix. Let's just leave things alone."
Here I have to absolutely disagree.
The internet is a key part of the infrastructure of many countries and no matter if you believe the current situation is broken or not, countries that have a key part of their infrastructure will consider this situation broken.
So I don't really think the question is if the situation will change, but how it will change and how things will be organized.
In my opinion these are the really interesting question, but unfortunately the debate on
Well, Bush, who wants to keep control over this "international corporation" and the rest of the world, who wants to end the US control about this "international corporation" disagree with you.
What about Afgahnistan? What about the crucial role the UN plays now in Iraq, something the current US administration urged the UN to do after everything was going downhill there. How about the German soldiers patrolling off the African coast as part of the war on terror and iirc they do so under an UN mandate.
And where exactly did the UN interfere?
About Iraq, I'm sorry, but acting as if the US was acting on behalf of the UN, when the US clearly did act against the expressed will of the vast majority of the UN member states and against the expressed will of the majority of the UN security council, which is after all the council that is to decide if Iraq really is, or rather was, not complying with UN resolutions, is simply silly.
After all, we Europeans designed and built it!!!!1111!!!111
And while we are at it, would you please stop using telephones, computers, automobiles and TVs!!!1111
Thank you,
Your European friends!!
P.S.:
China insists on the US not using explosives and paper!!!!111
"All this deserves is sarcasm."
/. this deserve +5 insightful, which is hilarious, to say the least.
No, you're wrong, on
Bull. This is in fact a very simple matter. The internet is now a key part of the infrastructure of many countries and no matter if you like it or not, nations don't like it when a critical part of their infrastructure is controlled by a foreign government. The US wouldn't like and accept such a situation and other nations won't either, so the interesting question is not if this situation will change, but how it will change.
If they're going to try to "force" the US, I can certainly see the US resigning. The UN has been nothing but a pain for the longest time, passing resolutions that no one but the US is supposed to carry out. Then when we do carry out UN resolutions, we're censured as being an "empire builders" or "warmongerers". Isn't it nice that so many countries can tell us what to do while they sit on their high horses? The next natural step after resigning would be to setup defensive positions in case someone wants to take it farther than that. I'm hoping that the member countries would be smart enough to leave things alone and recognize that a US resignation would be their own fault.
I know that people like you don't want to hear it, but being part of the UN is of great benefit to the US (do you really think the "war against terror" can be won by the US alone for example) so the US leaving the UN, thereby destroying the international system would be a very stupid move indeed, to put it mildly.
Btw., I'd really like to hear some examples of the US carrying out UN resolutions and then getting blamed for it. Thanks in advance.
I hope that was sarcasm? Because you may be surprised at what you find in the history of the internet's invention.
Hihi, watching people like you rave about how the US invented the internet is just to funny.
Why? First because it is pretty senseless. So what if they did? What follows from it? That only the US should be able to use the inernet? Well, have fun then, cause a global network is sure going to be useful when it's not global. And what about other inventions? How about the US not using any technology that wasn't invented in the US? Wouldn't that be fun?
Second, what about the www? It sure wasn't invented in the US, but in Europe? So what follows from this? You guys keep the internet while we take the www? How utterly silly, childish and senseless.
Higher?
;-D
This explains a lot...
*passesjointaround*
"But we did create the internet, and with the intention of improving our military and then later our civilian communication. It is great that we allowed it to be a globel network"
;-D
Well, as the world wide web was created in Europe, how about you keep the internet and we keep the world wide web. Deal?
Let's keep it with the US:
- The one nation in history using nuclear weapons on civilians.
- The nation that toppled the democratically elected government in Chile, to replace it with a dictatorship that killed thousands.
- The nation that did the same thing as above in many, many, other countries.
- The nation that sold Saddam WMDs and helped him to use them against Iran.
- The nation that is currently engaging in an illegal war in Iraq, started under false pretenses, that has already killed tensofthousands.
- The nation that doesn't grant the most basic human rights to it's POW.
Yes, Brilliant.
The zdnet article is just a rehash of the onlamp interview with Stallman that has recently been on /.:3 .html0 9/24/1325214&tid=117&tid=156
/. blurb to this story or the zdnet article want to make you believe.
/.
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/
Needless to say that you should read the actual interview, as things are a bit more complex than what the
Well done
Not that I disagree with you on being critical about the US, but:
"Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc... all of them are demonised for even thinking about developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. There's outrage if they hint that it's okay to have them."
And it's good that there is outrage and there should be outrage. Maybe I misunderand you, but are you trying to imply that because the US might to bad things it would only be fair if those states you mentioned were also allowed to do bad things? Seriously, I have a hard time understanding this kind of logic.
Oops, is that your whole point going down the gully I see here?
Please, stop attacking him.
"What would happen to the Biological Weapons Convention if other countries followed suit and built large biological production facilities at secretive military bases known for weapons testing?"
How does this translate to: The US wants to build biological weapons with this stuff?
Oh, it doesn't...
"It's not just that they *aren't* going to do anything evil with it, but rather, can't. If you read the article, you can see that it's both non-infectious, and can be used for vaccination. Being concerned when someone buys a gun is understandable. Being concerned when they buy an airsoft is much less so."
On the issue of RTFA:
1. It's funny that you on one hand claim that the article claims that US wants to build weapons with it, on the other you tell others to read the article, as it showed that this stuff can't be used for weapons production.
2. From TFA:
"It raises a serious question over how the US is going to demonstrate its compliance with obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention if it brings these tanks online," says Alan Pearson, programme director for biological and chemical weapons at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington DC. "If one can grow the Sterne strain in these units, one could also grow the Ames strain, which is quite lethal."
"The whole argument just smacks of fearmongering, and throws the word anthrax around as much as possible."
As this is about anthrax, I have a hard time seeing how they could have avoided using this word.
"They're not creating a biological weapons lab, just procuring enough to probably use for threat assessment of biological weapon dispersion."
First off, nobody claimed they wanted to build biological weapons with this stuff, so your whole point simply amounts to a strawman arument.
Second, it is amazing that you do seem to know exactly what they want to use this stuff for, as this is certainly not public knowledgd. Now I agree with you that this is probably what they want to do, however, I have no way of veryfing this.
"It's not going to be used for weaponry, and the US has enough nuclear firepower to not need biological weaponry, which are much more unpredictable in effect, and less reliable."
Again, stop the strawman arguments, nobody claimed they were going to use it for weapons.
As the article clearly states, the problem is that this equipment could be used to make weapons or at least produce anthrax strains that could be used in weapons. This isn't so much a problem because people think the US will do this, but because the US has signed international treaties that might be in conflict with what the US military is doing.
And even if it is not breaking these agreements, I'm sure you will agree that the signal it sends to other nations, namely that it is possible to aquire this kind of equipment if you only tell everyone that you are not going to do anything evil with it, is troublesome.
"Mac OS X 10.4: The 'X' stands for NeXT"
Ah, so that's why they call it OS ten, isn' it?
"Um, well, I might be in a minority there, but I find KDE (or Gnome for that matter) to be much more comfortable to use than the Apple UI."
/. mantra that OSX is a gift from the gods and without fail, so expect to be modded down if anyone actually bothers to moderate this stupid non-story, that is.
Minority? Certainly. But you are definately not alone in thinking this way.
This however goes against the
Don't get me wrong, I do like a lot about OSX, I think it makes a fine desktop and I can definately see the attraction, however, I prefer an other desktop, that's all.
Read again, they used X11.
So this really isn't news and this really isn't newsworthy.
If you had actually cared to investigate, you'd be aware of the fact that KDE actually has the feature you are "missing".
1. Two words: You did!
2. And I quote: "One example of the fundamental difference between OSS and commercial offerings."
How about:
File>Print>Option>text settings and choose print selected text only?
kiolucene doesn't search the content of files, so comparing it to beagle is a very stupid attempt a trolling at best.
2 8437
However, there also is kio_beagle, wich let's you use beagle from within konqueror.
http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=
And while we are at it, there is of course kat, which is roughly the kde equivalent to beagle right now. Kat will see a major redisign in the next version according to the developers and will work together with kiolucene.
One word: Idiot!
Why?
Not because you might not be right about some feature missing, but for taking out one missing feature and bashing a whole desktop and in fact OSS in general based on it.
That's just stupid trolling.
You might be surprised, but even RTFA doesn't help this time around, as /. just copy and pasted the blurb from the register.
But you are right, it doesn't make sense at all of course. I think one can assume that they wanted to talk about google advertising on aol, not on yahoo.
I agree with everything else you've said, but whether it really is a breach of copyright still isn't clear imho, hence the lawsuit.
Afaik they are still copyrighted (at least most of them).
However, google does seem to have contracts with certain libraries to scan their books, so they are not just randomly grabbing copyrighted material and scanning it.
If this is enough to make what they are doing legal is a question I simply can't answer, but suits like the one at hand should clear this situation up.
Finally, I can understand that some people find what google is doing problematic, on the other hand I really think that it is extremely usefull, so I hope that the issues will be resolved in a way that addresses the problems, but still makes it possible for people to use this great service.