Probably a lot because it will make people more responsible for the animals they keep. As someone who has spent a lot of time in Chile, I can't count the number of occasions I've run into huge monstruous dogs on the sidewalk. The owners let them out, and calmly wait for them to return.
Being bitten by someones lose dog is a common occurence, precisely because owners know there is nothing you can do about it. The police don't take such cases seriously, and people there usually scoff at the idea that there should be numbers tatooed on animals, or other such measures. The result has been a large number of emergency room cases where someone, sometimes small children, get maimed by someone's domestic animal let loose upon public property. Anything which makes people responsible for their pets, and therefor take care to think of potential problems beforehand is a big step forward.
"A stupid spore is no match for my immune system. If I'm sleeping with them every night, they are most probably well known to the immune system, I trust it will take care of any intruders."
That's not a very nice way to talk about your wife, is it? I guess you've been married a really long time, maybe...
One of the great things about open office writer is the possibility of installing as many spell checkers as you want, in any combination you want (unlike MS word, where if you're either stuck with combinations MS think should solve everybody's problems (english, french, spanish), or pay an arm and a leg for a third party add-on).
So, does anyone know what localizations of Abi will include a grammar check?
As someone who travels frequently, I can't wait for this to be a reality. I like to read the same newspapers wherever I am, but find them hard to get when I am away from home. Subscribing to the paper format when living abroad was ludicrously expensive, and not worth it to get your daily paper two days late.
Along came the internet and I have since subscribed to the web edition which is great, but not as portable as the paper version. No matter how light and small you laptop is, you can't just walk into a cafe with it under your arm, fire it up and read the paper at the counter.
This is going to be great for subscribing to foreign papers, or carrying a stack of them with you in a practical manner, to say nothing of the trees were gonna save.
ACtually, saying Europe has more or less freedom of expression than the US is a poorly framed statement, as there are very different legislations within the EU itself. Germany, France, and Italy are more restrictive than the US on some matters, but the scandinavian countries are far freer than the US will ever be.
I bought one of these a few months ago and must say it's much better. For starters, it can use both regular land line AND skype, which save me the trouble of having two cordless phones to loose around the house. Add to that the fact that a lot of the people I call don't use skype, so it's easier to call them on a regular phone line, but both my parents and girlfriend live abroad, so what I have saved on long distance has already allowed this little baby to pay for itself.
So, why is this linksys somehow worthy of all this publicity?
I stand corrected, then. But the fact remains that as long as sensitive aspects of the internet are solely in US hands, the rest of the world will simply have to trust the US to look out for everyone's interests, and the US will have to deal with the increasingly complex issues which come with the responsibility.
I can understand the desire to keep the internet safely in their hands, but question the wisdom of doing so.
"Even the "axis of evil" have not had problems with DNS under US control."
Actually, I think Irak did. If I recall correctly the ".iq" was made inaccessible by the US during the war. Perhaps someone can back me up on that one or correct me me if I'm wrong, I don't remember all the details right now.
But I think the important point is that other countries don't want the running of the internet to be run at the wim of the US administration, and I can see why, as the article correctly states that the smooth running of the internet is more and more critical to a lot of countries. I can understand their wish to see the internet run from a multilateral body where the rules of the game will be more stable and more predictable. I think the anti-US dimention here is being overplayed a lot, in part because the EU is more vocal than a lot of weaker entities, and also because the EU si willing to take the issue to the UN and work with the US rather than simply around the US (China, anyone?).
Many UN bodies have had corruption scandals, but so has the US goverment, and everyone can see what kind of operation the US congress is. Still, I'd rather live in the US than a lot of other countries. I don't think we need someone who will always be immaculate to run the internet, just a system of checks and balances which keeps things from getting out of hand (like at WIPO).
A lot of people in the US will react as though the EU had said "we will take the internet from you, and fuck you in the ass, too!" but I don't think that's the spirit they're coming with. The article does a bad job of stating exactly what was said. It's also important to keep in mind that the demands made at the start of negociations are rarely what is ultimately expected or even desired, they are just a way to have something to concede as you discuss the issues.
They are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the ITU (telecom), WIPO (IP), and IMO (Maritime) are all UN bodies which specialize in different areas. A lot of people like to repeat the mantra that the UN manages things poorly, but in spite of the fact that the US is always late paying its dues, the UN manages a lot of things really well, especially considering that a lot of things have to run on consensus from a set of very different parties. Most of those things don't make the headlines (like a lot of flops do), but diseases have been eradicated, trade facilitated, and plane/mail/migration flows are kept running smoothly.
As for a geek body running the internet. That strikes me as the most likely scenario. I imagine a situation where an existing body or bodies are incorporated into the UN umbrella. This has happened before, the WTO is in fact a remnant of the Society of Nations which was "adopted" by the UN system.
I think it's in the US's interest to relinquish control over parts of the internet management. There are two reasons for this:
1. If they don't other parties will try to go it alone. This is not bad in itself, but one of the advantages of the internet is that it works seamlessly across borders. What if we suddenly missed out on japanese porn because japnet and usanet were incompatible, or you had to pay to access anothers content?
2. As the internet expands, not only in terms of geographic penetration but also in terms of accounting for an ever greater part of public life, conflicts will begin to arise, and I wouldn't want to be everyone's lightning rod, better they solve their own problems in an international forum where the US can influence outcomes as well as choose its fights.
In the end, the reflex of a lot of people of screaming "the UN is corrupt" or "damn the world, it's our internet" is rather childish and counterproductive. Many global phenomena like the internet are better managed when you have the goodwill of several players, even if you are by far the most powerful nation on earth, millitarily.
Here is the handbook if you want to download it and read it yourself.
Kudos to RSF.org, a french NGO for their work. In addition to sticking up for journalists in harsh places (like Iran, China, but also occasionaly the US and Europe), they are doing a lot to introduce the notion of "cyber dissidence". This will probably help have the concept included in future human rights treaties. You can balk all you want at how slow the process is, and how difficult it is to enforce such treaties, but the reason many nasty regimes resist their signature is precisely because however imperfect they aren't entirely toothless and can be used to point out in a clear and unambiguous way that regimes are in breach of their international obligations.
I for one won't be changing from Skype. Although Google's IM supports open standards, skype is more secure. It is the only client which encrypts all comunications end-to-end, without requiring user intervention, thereby insuring that even your non tech friends use secure comunications.
Add to that the fact that pc-to-pc calls sound great (quality varies on pc-to-phone), file transfers are faster than most other clients I've tried (never tried AIM, though), and the interface is clean and runs natively on linux and mac, and I really don't see what google is offering me which I don't already have.
I mean besides having to convince people to get yet another email address so they can use a gmail account to use google's new IM client...
Slashdot Mirror
The ability to wrap your mother's sandwiches in transparent aluminum and loose your apetite before you even unwrap it!
Imagine a beowulf cluster of Robsons, you insensitive clod!
Robert Mueller's maanhood didn't grow to the size of a cucumber like Alan Ralsky promised....
You left out the internet falling apart and the killer poison dart-wielding dolphins.
Probably a lot because it will make people more responsible for the animals they keep. As someone who has spent a lot of time in Chile, I can't count the number of occasions I've run into huge monstruous dogs on the sidewalk. The owners let them out, and calmly wait for them to return.
Being bitten by someones lose dog is a common occurence, precisely because owners know there is nothing you can do about it. The police don't take such cases seriously, and people there usually scoff at the idea that there should be numbers tatooed on animals, or other such measures. The result has been a large number of emergency room cases where someone, sometimes small children, get maimed by someone's domestic animal let loose upon public property. Anything which makes people responsible for their pets, and therefor take care to think of potential problems beforehand is a big step forward.
"A stupid spore is no match for my immune system. If I'm sleeping with them every night, they are most probably well known to the immune system, I trust it will take care of any intruders."
That's not a very nice way to talk about your wife, is it? I guess you've been married a really long time, maybe...
One of the great things about open office writer is the possibility of installing as many spell checkers as you want, in any combination you want (unlike MS word, where if you're either stuck with combinations MS think should solve everybody's problems (english, french, spanish), or pay an arm and a leg for a third party add-on).
So, does anyone know what localizations of Abi will include a grammar check?
As someone who travels frequently, I can't wait for this to be a reality. I like to read the same newspapers wherever I am, but find them hard to get when I am away from home. Subscribing to the paper format when living abroad was ludicrously expensive, and not worth it to get your daily paper two days late.
Along came the internet and I have since subscribed to the web edition which is great, but not as portable as the paper version. No matter how light and small you laptop is, you can't just walk into a cafe with it under your arm, fire it up and read the paper at the counter.
This is going to be great for subscribing to foreign papers, or carrying a stack of them with you in a practical manner, to say nothing of the trees were gonna save.
ACtually, saying Europe has more or less freedom of expression than the US is a poorly framed statement, as there are very different legislations within the EU itself. Germany, France, and Italy are more restrictive than the US on some matters, but the scandinavian countries are far freer than the US will ever be.
does it scratch easily?
I bought one of these a few months ago and must say it's much better. For starters, it can use both regular land line AND skype, which save me the trouble of having two cordless phones to loose around the house. Add to that the fact that a lot of the people I call don't use skype, so it's easier to call them on a regular phone line, but both my parents and girlfriend live abroad, so what I have saved on long distance has already allowed this little baby to pay for itself.
So, why is this linksys somehow worthy of all this publicity?
How about, in Soviet Russia, Nathalie Portman upgrades YOUR specs?
The Ballmer approach to lobbying: hurl chairs at legislators until he gets his way.
Better yet, Google for overlords.
I for one... ah, nevermind...
British robo-fish vs. the US Navy's poison-dart-wielding dolphins.
Actually, the "iq" domain was on ice because the Texas-based company administrating it was under suspicion for funding terrorists.
I stand corrected, then. But the fact remains that as long as sensitive aspects of the internet are solely in US hands, the rest of the world will simply have to trust the US to look out for everyone's interests, and the US will have to deal with the increasingly complex issues which come with the responsibility.
I can understand the desire to keep the internet safely in their hands, but question the wisdom of doing so.
"Even the "axis of evil" have not had problems with DNS under US control."
Actually, I think Irak did. If I recall correctly the ".iq" was made inaccessible by the US during the war. Perhaps someone can back me up on that one or correct me me if I'm wrong, I don't remember all the details right now.
But I think the important point is that other countries don't want the running of the internet to be run at the wim of the US administration, and I can see why, as the article correctly states that the smooth running of the internet is more and more critical to a lot of countries. I can understand their wish to see the internet run from a multilateral body where the rules of the game will be more stable and more predictable. I think the anti-US dimention here is being overplayed a lot, in part because the EU is more vocal than a lot of weaker entities, and also because the EU si willing to take the issue to the UN and work with the US rather than simply around the US (China, anyone?).
Many UN bodies have had corruption scandals, but so has the US goverment, and everyone can see what kind of operation the US congress is. Still, I'd rather live in the US than a lot of other countries. I don't think we need someone who will always be immaculate to run the internet, just a system of checks and balances which keeps things from getting out of hand (like at WIPO).
A lot of people in the US will react as though the EU had said "we will take the internet from you, and fuck you in the ass, too!" but I don't think that's the spirit they're coming with. The article does a bad job of stating exactly what was said. It's also important to keep in mind that the demands made at the start of negociations are rarely what is ultimately expected or even desired, they are just a way to have something to concede as you discuss the issues.
They are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the ITU (telecom), WIPO (IP), and IMO (Maritime) are all UN bodies which specialize in different areas. A lot of people like to repeat the mantra that the UN manages things poorly, but in spite of the fact that the US is always late paying its dues, the UN manages a lot of things really well, especially considering that a lot of things have to run on consensus from a set of very different parties. Most of those things don't make the headlines (like a lot of flops do), but diseases have been eradicated, trade facilitated, and plane/mail/migration flows are kept running smoothly.
As for a geek body running the internet. That strikes me as the most likely scenario. I imagine a situation where an existing body or bodies are incorporated into the UN umbrella. This has happened before, the WTO is in fact a remnant of the Society of Nations which was "adopted" by the UN system.
I think it's in the US's interest to relinquish control over parts of the internet management. There are two reasons for this:
1. If they don't other parties will try to go it alone. This is not bad in itself, but one of the advantages of the internet is that it works seamlessly across borders. What if we suddenly missed out on japanese porn because japnet and usanet were incompatible, or you had to pay to access anothers content?
2. As the internet expands, not only in terms of geographic penetration but also in terms of accounting for an ever greater part of public life, conflicts will begin to arise, and I wouldn't want to be everyone's lightning rod, better they solve their own problems in an international forum where the US can influence outcomes as well as choose its fights.
In the end, the reflex of a lot of people of screaming "the UN is corrupt" or "damn the world, it's our internet" is rather childish and counterproductive. Many global phenomena like the internet are better managed when you have the goodwill of several players, even if you are by far the most powerful nation on earth, millitarily.
Just my USD 0.02.
For all those times they "accidentally intercept" 1-900 sex lines...
"We had reason to believe Ossama Bin Ladin calls this number frequently."
Here is the handbook if you want to download it and read it yourself.
Kudos to RSF.org, a french NGO for their work. In addition to sticking up for journalists in harsh places (like Iran, China, but also occasionaly the US and Europe), they are doing a lot to introduce the notion of "cyber dissidence". This will probably help have the concept included in future human rights treaties. You can balk all you want at how slow the process is, and how difficult it is to enforce such treaties, but the reason many nasty regimes resist their signature is precisely because however imperfect they aren't entirely toothless and can be used to point out in a clear and unambiguous way that regimes are in breach of their international obligations.
I for one won't be changing from Skype. Although Google's IM supports open standards, skype is more secure. It is the only client which encrypts all comunications end-to-end, without requiring user intervention, thereby insuring that even your non tech friends use secure comunications.
Add to that the fact that pc-to-pc calls sound great (quality varies on pc-to-phone), file transfers are faster than most other clients I've tried (never tried AIM, though), and the interface is clean and runs natively on linux and mac, and I really don't see what google is offering me which I don't already have.
I mean besides having to convince people to get yet another email address so they can use a gmail account to use google's new IM client...