"I can only conclude that you have suddenly realised that ARPANET != INTERNET and WE != UNITED STATES and have decided to go home."
Well, now you've put the ball in an entirely different court. Perhaps that will make more (or less) sense to you then.
class ArpaNet {
a = PacketTransmission
b = ArrangementofPCsInDefinedWay
c = OrganizationStructureOfNetwork
BasisOfInternet = a + b + c
}
class INTERnet extends class ArpaNet {
d = StuffToMakeArpanetMoreCommercial
e = StuffToMakeArpanetMorwUseful
}
Nobody ever claimed that Arpanet = Internet, except maybe you. It is the basis and root of it, that is inarguable. I don't recall ever seeing a we = United States either, certainly not from me anyway.
Also note that I don't think you're a troll, you're probably just angry that you can't prove a point that isn't there.
"So I'm commenting on how much the builders of bits of the internet (not arpanet) are the "United States"
And you say the the foundation of the internet, ARPA net was funded by American tax payers. You admit its only a bit, but essential."
Yeah, I admint it's only a bit. I guess I should clarify though. It is an essential bit in thats its the FIRST bit. Without ARPANET the rest wouldn't have happened. Sure, you could say that someone else wouldn've come up with it elsewhere had the U.S. not, but then you apply your own "temporal magnifying lens".
"Now arpanet being an essential little bit has only TINY relevance to whether or not the builders of the INTERT-net are the "United States""
Wrong. It has huge relevance. What came of ARPANET was more U.S. funded research and development. Decades of it. Literally decades of work paid for by U.S. taxpayers went into building this little project. I used ARPANET as an example, but the examples following ARPANET are all U.S. based as well. The international community didn't even get involved until relatively recently, relative to the 50+ years it has been under development in the U.S.
Who is babbling? You know for a fact that the internet is international built and owned by many companies and nationalities."
Yes, I know for a fact that the internet contains many different nationalities and companies, but the foundation is still here, in the U.S. I say this literally and figuratively of course.
"You don't even realise that the INTER-net is merely a co-operation of networks based on the ARPA-net protocols and organisational pattern."
What you don't realize is that The ROOT of the cooperation still exists here. The network existed here first, The rest of the world said "Hey, they got a good thing going there, can we join in", and it was so.
BTW, you keep capitalizing inter, like it is synonymous with international, which its not. Perhaps a trip to a dictionary or thesaurus is in order. There are several on the "INTER-net", but if you do a who-is on them, you'll find they are in the U.S.
"The internet is no more ARPANET than you and your cousins are your grandad."
Looks like you definately have yourself in a Jam, Sam. This kind of incoherent babble is usually reserved for religious zealots and scientologists.
"Even the American builders of bits of the internet are only in a small way the "United States" above being private companies and individuals, some of whom though eomployed or paid for by US companies are NOT American."
What? The foundation of the internet, you named it yourself, ARPANET, was funded by American taxpayer's dollars, not private companies. Sure, it's only a "bit" of the internet, but it's a big bit, being that the rest couldn't have happened without it.
"So the fine debating device here I used was to take the broad label "united states" where koreaman LIKES to use it and apply it in the same way and just as broadly to areas where he (and you) DON'T like to use it."
You can call it a fine debating service, I call it a feeble attempt to cover your ass.
So by disagreeing with my (obviously vague and inaccurate statement) do you also disagree with koreaman when he says that the United States build the internet and by implication ought to run it?
Right now the only thing anyone should agree on is that you are floundering.
"If you really think that Europe is for some reason "less free" than the US, than I would suggest you take a look at the http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15333"> Worldwide Press Freedom Index, which lists it in a solid 44th place on the index of freedom of the press, which is mainly what you are talking about when you discuss speech on the Internet, since it is a form of press."
If you think the rules of the press have any real stake on the internet, you're sorely mistake.
Worldwide Press Freedom Index? How the hell do you measure this? Is it quantitative? Does the U.S. get 7.9 units of free press, while France gets 8.3? No, they used a Questionairre...A questionairre that is not surprisingly missing from their site. I've seen this assinine reporters without borders joke show up in several posts, and it's pissing me off more and more everytime.
"The part thet makes the internet usefull for normal people is the web, if I'm not mistaken, most of that came from CERN; nothing to do with the US."
No, you mean that part that made it "commercial", or the part that made it "useable" for anyone. CERN merely built on technology that was created in the U.S. A Japanese man invented the Compact Disc, just because record labels have made them "useful for normal people" doesn't mean I credit records labels with any real stake in the "invention" compact discs.
'When you say "United States Built the thing" do you mean the same way as in "United States killed Iraqi civilians using white phosphor" and "United States contracts out tortue of suspects to other countries" or in the same way as "United States gave lots of help to Tsunami victims"'
No, I'm pretty sure the author meant exactly what he said. The internet began life as a project in the United States, funded by the United States, and continued to prosper for decades as a project in and of the United States. The basic idea and functionality was effectively "built" in the United States, which is why most, but not all, of the big things like DNS servers, etc, still reside in the United States. Look up ARPANET when you have a chance. Or DARPA. Or THE WELL. Or the NSF (National Science Foundation).
So, you're completely juvenile comment about things the United States has done, but not built and contributed to the society at large is not only unnecessary, but also sort of...irrelevant.
"Fundamentally, there is a problem with the way the US is underpricing fuel."
How is that problem "fundamental". And I'd wager that "Fundamentally" there is a problem with the way Europe is overpricing fuel. "Fundamentally" The problem is that you think the government should have a say in how much fuel costs, when "Fundamentally" the price of fuel is the same everywhere, the only difference is other governments are making a lot more in revenue off of it than America is...
"Until the US starts to tax gasoline products in order to encourage fuel efficiency, then the US will continue to drive around in inefficient gas guzzlers"
We need more tax on gasoline? I'm sorry to tell you this, but in America almost half the price of gasoline has tax built in. Thats huge. Which begs the question, how much is your goverment maing on it? Why doesn't this piss you off? You're getting gouged at the pump by your own governing body, with the perception that they're furthering some economic cause.
"but the Federal Government cut all funding off. (Such repairs are the job of the Army Engineer Corps.)"
When did it become the Federal Government's reponsibility to fund local problems. Hell, if thats the case, I got a serious flooding problem in my backyard, everytime I have a storm that bastard erodes the hell out of my backyard, better see who's going to fund that one. The Army Corp of Engineers isn't the only group who deals with these problems, oh and btw, they receive local funding as well as Federal budgets. This situation has been a known possibility for atleast a decade, and to be honest I am not at all surprised, the victims had several days to a weeks notice, and a mandatory evacuation (Yes, there were buses removing people from the city for those who couldn't provide there own transportation, before you play the povery card), so this whole situation shouldn't be a big gotcha for anyone who decided to "ride it out". This was all to be expected.
"And the disaster relief (currently standing around 150 billion) is focussed on salvage, rescue and rebuilding efforts."
And the problem with this is...?
"In other words, the disaster "relief" from the Federal Government is nothing of the sort. It is a cynical manipulation of the American voter. The problem is, it'll likely work. And when New Orleans is declared unsalvagable (because the real work was never done), all Washington DC will care about is that there's one fewer Democrat stronghold."
Well, at a minimum you're doing a great job of pulling the bullet-points out of every newcast for the last week and turning it into partisan politics. Kudos! Either party would benefit greatly from this kind of spin.
Well, It seems somebody has been watching entirely too much news. You know, the stuff on TV that tells to you what you're supposed to think and say, and how you're supposed to feel about an issue. The TV says I should be outraged about Federal response to the hurricane, that must be my right.
"It would be trivial for the Government to pay Greyhound to move every single unused bus to an evacuation point and carry the people around the country. They could pay Amtrak to do it. The airlines aren't short of capacity, they're short of cash."
Did you just say it would be TRIVIAL to for the government to pay for all of this. Get your head out of your butt, Its not trivial to pay for any of this, whether the federal government is paying for it or not.
"Is this happening? So far, I've not heard of a single extra dime going towards paying for the mass exodus.
What happens when they get to where they're going? Who is going to pay for their shelter? For the uninsured or the elderly, where is the extra money for medicare going to come from? And for those insured by companies based in a flooded-out area, nobody is going to take an insurance card from a company that might never reopen so what are they going to do?"
Well, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you haven't been watching enough TV, if you had you'd have seen the exorbitant amounts being funded for this disaster. You know, somewhere around 13.8 bn + so far...theres a few dimes in there I assure you.
I don't live in New Orleans, but I've known for years that if a Hurricane ever came anywhere close to it, we were gonna have problems like this. It is the responsibility of the state and local governments to plan for disasters in their areas. Prevention and preparation should have been a focus for the officials in New Orleans and Louisiana long ago, not immediate remedy from the Feds in the event of disaster.
Government control of a "backbone" infrastructure is frightening at best. I'll concede that Sprint control of a "backbone", or any other company for that matter, has it's own set of caveats. But thats beside the point.
It is unrealistic to think that the government could provide this infrastructure cheaply and effectively. Who will they contract to provide it? Sprint? Who will maintain it? Another government agency? private contractors? Hopefully you are seeing my point, I'd love to have more choices than I already do for broadband (I already have like six to pick from, not including satellite, which excludes itself), but I'm fairly sure that slapping down a whole new infrastructure, different than the one we already have, would cost more and in the end be provided by the same groups you seek to exclude. If we were starting from square one like Korea (Rep.) or Sweden, it would be considerable, but we're already too far along to backtrack now.
What, broadband internet is about access to information, and therefore should be provided to the maximum number of people and not considered a luxury item? Last I checked streaming video isn't a necessity, the same info can be accessed via dial-up if you can't afford, or don't have access to broadband. Don't have broadband in you area? Well if it means that much to you, move, or wait for it to get there like we had to do 5 years ago. You'll get over it I assure you.
Furthermore, why hasn't this argument been brought with Cable TV? Cable TV is information and entertainment, same as the internet, yet it's still costs more for cable television than broadband internet. What gives?
Slashdot Mirror
"I can only conclude that you have suddenly realised that ARPANET != INTERNET and WE != UNITED STATES and have decided to go home."
Well, now you've put the ball in an entirely different court. Perhaps that will make more (or less) sense to you then.
class ArpaNet {
a = PacketTransmission
b = ArrangementofPCsInDefinedWay
c = OrganizationStructureOfNetwork
BasisOfInternet = a + b + c
}
class INTERnet extends class ArpaNet {
d = StuffToMakeArpanetMoreCommercial
e = StuffToMakeArpanetMorwUseful
}
Nobody ever claimed that Arpanet = Internet, except maybe you. It is the basis and root of it, that is inarguable. I don't recall ever seeing a we = United States either, certainly not from me anyway.
Also note that I don't think you're a troll, you're probably just angry that you can't prove a point that isn't there.
gmuller
"So I'm commenting on how much the builders of bits of the internet (not arpanet) are the "United States" And you say the the foundation of the internet, ARPA net was funded by American tax payers. You admit its only a bit, but essential."
Yeah, I admint it's only a bit. I guess I should clarify though. It is an essential bit in thats its the FIRST bit. Without ARPANET the rest wouldn't have happened. Sure, you could say that someone else wouldn've come up with it elsewhere had the U.S. not, but then you apply your own "temporal magnifying lens". "Now arpanet being an essential little bit has only TINY relevance to whether or not the builders of the INTERT-net are the "United States""
Wrong. It has huge relevance. What came of ARPANET was more U.S. funded research and development. Decades of it. Literally decades of work paid for by U.S. taxpayers went into building this little project. I used ARPANET as an example, but the examples following ARPANET are all U.S. based as well. The international community didn't even get involved until relatively recently, relative to the 50+ years it has been under development in the U.S.
Who is babbling? You know for a fact that the internet is international built and owned by many companies and nationalities."
Yes, I know for a fact that the internet contains many different nationalities and companies, but the foundation is still here, in the U.S. I say this literally and figuratively of course.
"You don't even realise that the INTER-net is merely a co-operation of networks based on the ARPA-net protocols and organisational pattern."
What you don't realize is that The ROOT of the cooperation still exists here. The network existed here first, The rest of the world said "Hey, they got a good thing going there, can we join in", and it was so.
BTW, you keep capitalizing inter, like it is synonymous with international, which its not. Perhaps a trip to a dictionary or thesaurus is in order. There are several on the "INTER-net", but if you do a who-is on them, you'll find they are in the U.S.
"The internet is no more ARPANET than you and your cousins are your grandad."
More senseless babble
gmuller
Looks like you definately have yourself in a Jam, Sam. This kind of incoherent babble is usually reserved for religious zealots and scientologists.
"Even the American builders of bits of the internet are only in a small way the "United States" above being private companies and individuals, some of whom though eomployed or paid for by US companies are NOT American."
What? The foundation of the internet, you named it yourself, ARPANET, was funded by American taxpayer's dollars, not private companies. Sure, it's only a "bit" of the internet, but it's a big bit, being that the rest couldn't have happened without it.
"So the fine debating device here I used was to take the broad label "united states" where koreaman LIKES to use it and apply it in the same way and just as broadly to areas where he (and you) DON'T like to use it."
You can call it a fine debating service, I call it a feeble attempt to cover your ass.
So by disagreeing with my (obviously vague and inaccurate statement) do you also disagree with koreaman when he says that the United States build the internet and by implication ought to run it?
Right now the only thing anyone should agree on is that you are floundering.
gmuller
"If you really think that Europe is for some reason "less free" than the US, than I would suggest you take a look at the http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15333"> Worldwide Press Freedom Index, which lists it in a solid 44th place on the index of freedom of the press, which is mainly what you are talking about when you discuss speech on the Internet, since it is a form of press."
If you think the rules of the press have any real stake on the internet, you're sorely mistake.
Worldwide Press Freedom Index? How the hell do you measure this? Is it quantitative? Does the U.S. get 7.9 units of free press, while France gets 8.3? No, they used a Questionairre...A questionairre that is not surprisingly missing from their site. I've seen this assinine reporters without borders joke show up in several posts, and it's pissing me off more and more everytime.
gmuller
"The part thet makes the internet usefull for normal people is the web, if I'm not mistaken, most of that came from CERN; nothing to do with the US."
No, you mean that part that made it "commercial", or the part that made it "useable" for anyone. CERN merely built on technology that was created in the U.S. A Japanese man invented the Compact Disc, just because record labels have made them "useful for normal people" doesn't mean I credit records labels with any real stake in the "invention" compact discs.
gmuller
'When you say "United States Built the thing" do you mean the same way as in "United States killed Iraqi civilians using white phosphor" and "United States contracts out tortue of suspects to other countries" or in the same way as "United States gave lots of help to Tsunami victims"'
No, I'm pretty sure the author meant exactly what he said. The internet began life as a project in the United States, funded by the United States, and continued to prosper for decades as a project in and of the United States. The basic idea and functionality was effectively "built" in the United States, which is why most, but not all, of the big things like DNS servers, etc, still reside in the United States. Look up ARPANET when you have a chance. Or DARPA. Or THE WELL. Or the NSF (National Science Foundation).
So, you're completely juvenile comment about things the United States has done, but not built and contributed to the society at large is not only unnecessary, but also sort of...irrelevant.
gmuller
"Fundamentally, there is a problem with the way the US is underpricing fuel."
How is that problem "fundamental". And I'd wager that "Fundamentally" there is a problem with the way Europe is overpricing fuel. "Fundamentally" The problem is that you think the government should have a say in how much fuel costs, when "Fundamentally" the price of fuel is the same everywhere, the only difference is other governments are making a lot more in revenue off of it than America is...
"Until the US starts to tax gasoline products in order to encourage fuel efficiency, then the US will continue to drive around in inefficient gas guzzlers"
We need more tax on gasoline? I'm sorry to tell you this, but in America almost half the price of gasoline has tax built in. Thats huge. Which begs the question, how much is your goverment maing on it? Why doesn't this piss you off? You're getting gouged at the pump by your own governing body, with the perception that they're furthering some economic cause.
gmuller
I just love reading hyperbolic replies from extremely ignorant people like yourself. It tickles me in a way that I can't even describe.
gmuller
"but the Federal Government cut all funding off. (Such repairs are the job of the Army Engineer Corps.)"
When did it become the Federal Government's reponsibility to fund local problems. Hell, if thats the case, I got a serious flooding problem in my backyard, everytime I have a storm that bastard erodes the hell out of my backyard, better see who's going to fund that one. The Army Corp of Engineers isn't the only group who deals with these problems, oh and btw, they receive local funding as well as Federal budgets. This situation has been a known possibility for atleast a decade, and to be honest I am not at all surprised, the victims had several days to a weeks notice, and a mandatory evacuation (Yes, there were buses removing people from the city for those who couldn't provide there own transportation, before you play the povery card), so this whole situation shouldn't be a big gotcha for anyone who decided to "ride it out". This was all to be expected.
"And the disaster relief (currently standing around 150 billion) is focussed on salvage, rescue and rebuilding efforts."
And the problem with this is...?
"In other words, the disaster "relief" from the Federal Government is nothing of the sort. It is a cynical manipulation of the American voter. The problem is, it'll likely work. And when New Orleans is declared unsalvagable (because the real work was never done), all Washington DC will care about is that there's one fewer Democrat stronghold."
Well, at a minimum you're doing a great job of pulling the bullet-points out of every newcast for the last week and turning it into partisan politics. Kudos! Either party would benefit greatly from this kind of spin.
gmuller
Well, It seems somebody has been watching entirely too much news. You know, the stuff on TV that tells to you what you're supposed to think and say, and how you're supposed to feel about an issue. The TV says I should be outraged about Federal response to the hurricane, that must be my right.
"It would be trivial for the Government to pay Greyhound to move every single unused bus to an evacuation point and carry the people around the country. They could pay Amtrak to do it. The airlines aren't short of capacity, they're short of cash."
Did you just say it would be TRIVIAL to for the government to pay for all of this. Get your head out of your butt, Its not trivial to pay for any of this, whether the federal government is paying for it or not.
"Is this happening? So far, I've not heard of a single extra dime going towards paying for the mass exodus. What happens when they get to where they're going? Who is going to pay for their shelter? For the uninsured or the elderly, where is the extra money for medicare going to come from? And for those insured by companies based in a flooded-out area, nobody is going to take an insurance card from a company that might never reopen so what are they going to do?"
Well, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you haven't been watching enough TV, if you had you'd have seen the exorbitant amounts being funded for this disaster. You know, somewhere around 13.8 bn + so far...theres a few dimes in there I assure you.
I don't live in New Orleans, but I've known for years that if a Hurricane ever came anywhere close to it, we were gonna have problems like this. It is the responsibility of the state and local governments to plan for disasters in their areas. Prevention and preparation should have been a focus for the officials in New Orleans and Louisiana long ago, not immediate remedy from the Feds in the event of disaster.
gmuller
Government control of a "backbone" infrastructure is frightening at best. I'll concede that Sprint control of a "backbone", or any other company for that matter, has it's own set of caveats. But thats beside the point.
It is unrealistic to think that the government could provide this infrastructure cheaply and effectively. Who will they contract to provide it? Sprint? Who will maintain it? Another government agency? private contractors? Hopefully you are seeing my point, I'd love to have more choices than I already do for broadband (I already have like six to pick from, not including satellite, which excludes itself), but I'm fairly sure that slapping down a whole new infrastructure, different than the one we already have, would cost more and in the end be provided by the same groups you seek to exclude. If we were starting from square one like Korea (Rep.) or Sweden, it would be considerable, but we're already too far along to backtrack now.
gmuller
It worked fin in the ol' U.S.A. before we starting catering to the LCD, you know, lowest common denominator. gmuller
What, broadband internet is about access to information, and therefore should be provided to the maximum number of people and not considered a luxury item? Last I checked streaming video isn't a necessity, the same info can be accessed via dial-up if you can't afford, or don't have access to broadband. Don't have broadband in you area? Well if it means that much to you, move, or wait for it to get there like we had to do 5 years ago. You'll get over it I assure you.
Furthermore, why hasn't this argument been brought with Cable TV? Cable TV is information and entertainment, same as the internet, yet it's still costs more for cable television than broadband internet. What gives?
gmuller