That is pretty much correct, cloud computing is a technology idea, it is just marketed as Google or MS hosting your apps. But successful cloud computing will require portability. Even if, for some reason, I want to host all my apps at company X, I am a total idiot if I don't know how to migrate them into another data center or bring them back home! Since this open system portability will be demanded, it is hard to see how open system cloud environments won't be mandatory. If you really understand cloud computing, you will also understand why MS is doing everything in their power to take down VM Ware. What is better, this is actually a battle the open source community can win. Not only can open source compete with players but applications can be packaged with an OS wrapper and largely preconfigured, your average user will no longer care what OS the application is in, just if they can use it.
What's more ESX server may not techinally be Linux (don't know how this is measured) but it sure smells totally Unix like to me (OK I am not an expert on this).
And yes, LOL bot nets are and early example of new computing trends.
Cloud computing technologies are NOT about (or only about) big box companies hosting your applications. They are about the ability to host them where ever you want when you want, from big companies to local server farms to *gasp* the user's desktops. The next generation of application after cloud computing will have to do with being able to leverage computing resources anywhere and anytime with automated failover and resource sharing.
Further, economy of scale only goes so far, that is why every company in NOT a giant corporation. At a certain size you don't get additional benefits from specialization and the additional size just adds overhead. If you hiring a plumber, maybe you just need 1 guy who knows what he or she is doing, not a corporation behind him. Once you have a handful of staff members monitoring your servers and nothing else you have gotten all the benefit from specialization (economy of scale) and now you may just be adding needless overhead as you get larger. Large companies can negotiate additional discounts sometimes, but as margins on hardware or whatever become thinner, the discounts become less and less.
The point here is not that no applications should be hosted by large outside vendors but rather that different solutions are now available to all datacenters depending on their size and need. Don't fear cloud computing, but don't believe industry hype. It is just a technology that allows you to more efficiently use resources on an as needed basis.
Last thing to remember, a monitor and keyboard with a "run of the mill" processor is only a little more expensive than on with a "can only run virtual apps" processor, and you still might need that same processor on the back end anyway and that network isn't free either.
Ham it up a bit. Publicly denounce Colbert in a humorous manner then challenge him to a leg wresting contest. He will have to say yes, so pick the burliest NASA employee to go up against him.
Colbert wins becuase he gets more amusing footage for his show, NASA wins with extra publicity. And NASA gets to name the station whatever they want. (well if they lose I guess they better be ready to live with Colbert Station 1)
Why make a list of companies that will "go out of business", then hedge by saying they might be bought up, then finish with, well we don't think much of this is likely.
Reminds me of a skit I saw once.
Interviewer: You have an facinating new book called, "Was Hitler Welsh?" Well was he? Author: After exhaustive study, I can confidently say, no he wasn't.
Hmmm... I am 100% certain that deliveries by sea are restricted by Isreal also. Come to think if it, I am 100% certain Isreal security forces can even prevent fishermen from going out.
I am sure that some shipments are allowed into Gaza, but I am also sure that the difficulty of doing so (both in and out, they have to sell stuff to buy stuff you know) is causing shortages.
I think a lot of people are missing something very important in this case, lots of things are crimes if and only if lying is involved. There is no such thing as slander, liable, false advertisement and fraud (for example) that involves only true and wholly accurate statements. So yes, we can't and shouldn't make people "play nice" all the time, but things don't work well if you let people lie and harm others. So the truth really DOES matter (duh).
Quote "He didn't say worse, just not better which can mean about the same. Instead of being angry about invading Iraq, we might all be upset about Gore not being aggressive enough, Al Qaeda is still running free with a free run of south Asia, and maybe even managed to land a few more attacks on US soil. Then who knows what sort of cowboy war hawk we would have elected in 2004.
Sure, you might lose some of Bush's failures if he hadn't been the sitting president on Sept. 11, 2001, but you also might not have some of his successes."
____________________
Or maybe Gore is an alien and would have sucked out our children's brains at night if we had elected him President.
Good lord, not this again. Please point to anyting Gore said after 9/11 that sounded like "let's not attack Al Qaeda" or "let't not intervene in Afganistan". I even remember some other pretty far gone right wingers asserting Gore might have surrendered to Al Qaeda. So cry in your beer and tell yourself the other guy would have been just as bad all you want, but Bush will be as infamous as Nixon.
Really, if you want to country to put politics behind it and do whats best for our country (like Mcain says he wants), don't you think you are better off NOT making speculative attacks about how bad the "other side" would have been?
You know telescopes were invented by a couple of kids playing with lenses their dad had given them(he was a lens maker). Also I understand the 3D ultrasound was invented by a young man also. If I have the story right, his Dad was a doctor and complained one time that it was so annoying that Ultrasounds have these hard to interpret 2D type images and wished there was some software to turn it 3D. Turns out the kid had software that does just that on his PC at home. So he didn't invent Ultrasound or 3D translation algorithms, he just put two technologies he knew about together.
The point here is not that these kid's accomplishments are not praiseworthy, they most certainly ARE! The point is we are beginning to see the true impact of the information age. There are an amazing amount of things to invent, if you just put together two or three things we already know. And the next generation, so familiar with the Internet, will start doing this on a routing basis since no one told them it couldn't be done.
Entrapment is when agents of the government - ie, law enforcement officials - trick somebody into breaking the law.
If a cop talks somebody into breaking into a bank and then arrests him, the case will be thrown out for entrapment.
But if I double-dog dare somebody to break into a bank and they do so, the only thing I'm guilty of is having an idiot for a friend.
Just to be clear, I know this isn't entrapment because of course the scammers aren't law officials. I am arguing against his logic. Remember the scammed are typically NOT experts in international financial law. The diplomat in question is arguing to *actually* imprison people for a crime they didn't commit AND for breaking a law they likely didn't know existed (and at least almost certainly don't understand!)
Remember the scammed belived one part of the lie, so it is likely that they might also belive things like "I am just avoiding corrupt government officials" or even "All the risk is on my part, you are not doing anything illegal here, you are just enabling me." Do you really think the scammer is saying "you are taking a tremendous risk here because you are breaking the following laws...?"
Maybe the scammed are being unethical in *some* (no where near all!) cases, but again this guys is arguing to imprison them. But of course he doen't really mean for this to happen, he is just providing political cover for his own country!
As for people being scammed because they are dumb, that is in a sense true. Many people not at the top of their game get scammed. Elderly, sick or otherwise impared and/or desperate. No, if this guy wants to do the right thing, he should fight for extridition.
There is a reason for laws against entrapment. Also in many of these scams they try to make it look like you are doing the "honorable" thing to help avoid some corrupt government.
Now if they said something like "help use move this money so we can buy weapons and kill civilians" maybe I would be more sympathetic.
A little too self serving of a comment from Nigeria.
Maybe, maybe not, read more on the subject. While our knowledge may have expanded from when I was in college, what I learned was in falling rocks heated the earth some but so did short lived radioactive elements (BTW, it is also radioactive elements that are keeping the earth's center hot today. By definition, ones with half lives about or less than the age of earth would have been more abundant at the time.) I should have made a longer post, but we currently are not sure if the Iron Catastrophe would have happed without the short term isotopes.
Of course the isotopes are easy to prove by looking at old meteors (kind of like carbon dating)
So I think my main point stands, the earth has 1 and possibly more unlikely events in it's creation.
While there may be lots of systems like Sol, there is really no reason to expect there are. Here is another difference, our system formed shortly after a near by supernova. How do we know this? Because of the decay remnants from short lived isotopes in meteors. Because the isotopes are so short lived and occur in such relatively large numbers we know the supernova must have been recent. The energy from this decay melted the early earth. That, btw, is why most of the iron is in the center.
Look up the term "iron catastrophe" for more information.
Of course, the universe is pretty big I hear so if you look far enough you will find another earth I guess. Still, keep good care of the planet we have. It just might be really valuable.
Though I got branded as a troll and as "not Understanding" modern communication systems last time I posted this, I will try again. We need to be prepared with ways to shut down major communication lines to countries engaged in hostilities in the case of cyber battles. Yes, the combatants may be using systems outside their country, but unless the hacker is stationed outside also you can't give orders to your bot net or remote hacking system with out an internet connection or magic.
I know network systems are large and complicated, but they are not infinitely so and could be designed or at least analyzed in advance with one eye at national boundaries. Even satellite systems have to be over some country and receiving signals from a definable physical area. I freely admit it becomes a VERY blunt hammer, but if nations are at war and real people are dying I wouldn't think twice about cutting off an aggressor nation's service. (Maybe we would leave some kind of system in place for our own purposes, for example maybe WE want to know what is going on, but that should be our decision.) The blunt hammer nature would just be additional pressure stop the attack.
For all of you who told me this was impossible, looks like Russia was able to do this in part to Georgia!
As has been noted, WAR needs to not go head to head with WOTLK. They need to get people, if not angry with WOW, maybe a little bored and willing to at least try something new. So as a marketing strategy this is just fine. Also they seem to offer something new and interesting. I don't think they really see themselves as a WoW killer (you can't for a few more years), but hope to play in the same league. Also they focus on PvP so they are trying for a subtly different market.
Missing content isn't really a problem (OK, with the way they set up side symatry, missing 4 classes might be an issue, but missing tank is no better than missing healing or dps). So long as you keep adding content and there is stuff to do at the start you are fine.
BUT, if they rush a buggy unpleasant game out the door, they can just kiss their money good bye. That is what they should really be worried about. Also they shoudl worry about if it is actually fun.
While it is VERY silly to expect EBay to prevent all counterfeit items AND that whole resale of trademarked items is scary, it might point out a flaw in their business model. Consider a "consignment" store or pawn shop that takes a cut of each sale and is stocked with stolen and fake items. Eventually, if you have enough of this nonsense, I think it is fair to consider that store a fence and not a legitimate business.
The more EBay takes a "cut" of each sale, the more they become part of the transaction. Perhaps a flat fee. I am sure EBay wants to make as much profit as possible, but if they become a party to each transaction they can't help but take on some liability.
I wonder if this ruling will really hold over time. While the current Supreme Court can chose to uphold various other weapon control laws, as a legal precident it may have many unforseen cosequences.
Remeber, it is the right to bear *ARMS* not *JUST* guns in the Constitution! That means knives, swords, chainguns, flamethrowers, tanks, weaponized anthrax, and nuclear weapons. Now of course many of those are not suitable for home defense, but the question is can the government regulate the TYPE of arms you possess. I assume there will never be agreement about what should go on the list, but is it possible to agree about who should make it? Why is a handgun in some way special in the category of arms, why would possession of a shotgun or rifle not be sufficient for self defense? Do you need a weapon you can easily hide? If you can leagaly bring a weapon somewhere, why do you need one that can be hidden?
Does anyone know? Does there have to be some kind of catch all pardon from the President or something at the end of his term? (I hearby pardon all members of the Whitehouse staff of all crimes) That thing about firing Federal Attorney's who wouldn't procecute opponents of the White House during elections seems like something that shouldn't be just dropped.
Why "AI" may not be super userful for a while.
on
Whatever Happened To AI?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What do you get when you make a machine think like a person? A computer that loses it's car keys.
Not only is the task of making a machine think like a person difficult, we have plenty of things that think "like" people, people. It isn't supprising that the first benefits are coming from superior human interfaces and having computers focus on doing well what we do poorly. Would a "super computer" really be "super smart"? Could it beat out millions of human brains working on a problem in parallel?
AI will bring great things in the future, but a little thought into the subject shows that we may not get exactly what we might first expect...
Frankly, because of stuff like this, we need to be prepared to use a variation of the old Internet Death Sentence. Hostile nations could be removed from the routing tables (i.e. we don't route traffic to or from them). With international cooperation attacks like this *could* be stopped dead in their tracks, with the side benefit that the offending nation would have a high priority desire to clean up the attacks.
Just another tool you need to keep in your toolbelt.
IANAL but, doesn't someone have to be informed in some way it is in apppropriate to use a network before it is illegal? Home networks are one thing, just because I unlock my front door, doesn't mean you can walk in, but bussiness are another matter. In the case of a business, in unlocking your front door you DO mean for the world to come in. Of course you *hope* people will buy stuff and reserve to right to ask someone not to come back, BUT you need to be clear because an assumed invitation exists. Or am I wrong?
The position paper lists out a whole host of issues, IPV6, fair internet pricing for all countries, internet crime, freedom of information, and a lot of other similar issues. (It is an easy read, I recommend it). Over all, it didn't seem like control of the root servers would allow you to deal with nearly any of the listed issues. How on earth can control of the root DNS servers prevent email scam letters? Really all that seemed to happen is everyone listed their list of issues in a single paper and decided that the first step to solving it would be to control the DNS servers.
I think most people reading this will agree with me that control of the DNS servers won't solve any of this. At best you could try to use your control as leverage to get what you want (i.e. cut off service), but if you actually do this you splinter the internet and all the IT workers start scrambling to make patches to get around what you did!
If the paper had limited itself to questions of domain name ownership, it might have been worth considering, but as written I can't support their policy. Whoever controls the root DNS servers should be worried about two things only. Keeping them running and figuring out fair ways to pass out domain names.
The only thing even remotely related was IPV6, maybe. But my understanding is the root servers aren't holding it back, it is all the routers that need to be reconfigured. I know that the U.S. got the lion's share of the IPV4 addresses. It was just because we were first. But everyone knows that "if you build it, we will come!" start laying down an IPV6 infrastructure and the U.S. will join rather than be left behind.
Slashdot Mirror
That is pretty much correct, cloud computing is a technology idea, it is just marketed as Google or MS hosting your apps. But successful cloud computing will require portability. Even if, for some reason, I want to host all my apps at company X, I am a total idiot if I don't know how to migrate them into another data center or bring them back home! Since this open system portability will be demanded, it is hard to see how open system cloud environments won't be mandatory. If you really understand cloud computing, you will also understand why MS is doing everything in their power to take down VM Ware. What is better, this is actually a battle the open source community can win. Not only can open source compete with players but applications can be packaged with an OS wrapper and largely preconfigured, your average user will no longer care what OS the application is in, just if they can use it.
What's more ESX server may not techinally be Linux (don't know how this is measured) but it sure smells totally Unix like to me (OK I am not an expert on this).
And yes, LOL bot nets are and early example of new computing trends.
Cloud computing technologies are NOT about (or only about) big box companies hosting your applications. They are about the ability to host them where ever you want when you want, from big companies to local server farms to *gasp* the user's desktops. The next generation of application after cloud computing will have to do with being able to leverage computing resources anywhere and anytime with automated failover and resource sharing.
Further, economy of scale only goes so far, that is why every company in NOT a giant corporation. At a certain size you don't get additional benefits from specialization and the additional size just adds overhead. If you hiring a plumber, maybe you just need 1 guy who knows what he or she is doing, not a corporation behind him. Once you have a handful of staff members monitoring your servers and nothing else you have gotten all the benefit from specialization (economy of scale) and now you may just be adding needless overhead as you get larger. Large companies can negotiate additional discounts sometimes, but as margins on hardware or whatever become thinner, the discounts become less and less.
The point here is not that no applications should be hosted by large outside vendors but rather that different solutions are now available to all datacenters depending on their size and need. Don't fear cloud computing, but don't believe industry hype. It is just a technology that allows you to more efficiently use resources on an as needed basis.
Last thing to remember, a monitor and keyboard with a "run of the mill" processor is only a little more expensive than on with a "can only run virtual apps" processor, and you still might need that same processor on the back end anyway and that network isn't free either.
Ham it up a bit. Publicly denounce Colbert in a humorous manner then challenge him to a leg wresting contest. He will have to say yes, so pick the burliest NASA employee to go up against him.
Colbert wins becuase he gets more amusing footage for his show, NASA wins with extra publicity. And NASA gets to name the station whatever they want. (well if they lose I guess they better be ready to live with Colbert Station 1)
Why make a list of companies that will "go out of business", then hedge by saying they might be bought up, then finish with, well we don't think much of this is likely.
Reminds me of a skit I saw once.
Interviewer: You have an facinating new book called, "Was Hitler Welsh?" Well was he?
Author: After exhaustive study, I can confidently say, no he wasn't.
And sorry for the dyslexia.
Hmmm... I am 100% certain that deliveries by sea are restricted by Isreal also. Come to think if it, I am 100% certain Isreal security forces can even prevent fishermen from going out.
I am sure that some shipments are allowed into Gaza, but I am also sure that the difficulty of doing so (both in and out, they have to sell stuff to buy stuff you know) is causing shortages.
I think a lot of people are missing something very important in this case, lots of things are crimes if and only if lying is involved. There is no such thing as slander, liable, false advertisement and fraud (for example) that involves only true and wholly accurate statements. So yes, we can't and shouldn't make people "play nice" all the time, but things don't work well if you let people lie and harm others. So the truth really DOES matter (duh).
Quote "He didn't say worse, just not better which can mean about the same. Instead of being angry about invading Iraq, we might all be upset about Gore not being aggressive enough, Al Qaeda is still running free with a free run of south Asia, and maybe even managed to land a few more attacks on US soil. Then who knows what sort of cowboy war hawk we would have elected in 2004.
Sure, you might lose some of Bush's failures if he hadn't been the sitting president on Sept. 11, 2001, but you also might not have some of his successes."
____________________
Or maybe Gore is an alien and would have sucked out our children's brains at night if we had elected him President.
Good lord, not this again. Please point to anyting Gore said after 9/11 that sounded like "let's not attack Al Qaeda" or "let't not intervene in Afganistan". I even remember some other pretty far gone right wingers asserting Gore might have surrendered to Al Qaeda. So cry in your beer and tell yourself the other guy would have been just as bad all you want, but Bush will be as infamous as Nixon.
Really, if you want to country to put politics behind it and do whats best for our country (like Mcain says he wants), don't you think you are better off NOT making speculative attacks about how bad the "other side" would have been?
You know telescopes were invented by a couple of kids playing with lenses their dad had given them(he was a lens maker). Also I understand the 3D ultrasound was invented by a young man also. If I have the story right, his Dad was a doctor and complained one time that it was so annoying that Ultrasounds have these hard to interpret 2D type images and wished there was some software to turn it 3D. Turns out the kid had software that does just that on his PC at home. So he didn't invent Ultrasound or 3D translation algorithms, he just put two technologies he knew about together.
The point here is not that these kid's accomplishments are not praiseworthy, they most certainly ARE! The point is we are beginning to see the true impact of the information age. There are an amazing amount of things to invent, if you just put together two or three things we already know. And the next generation, so familiar with the Internet, will start doing this on a routing basis since no one told them it couldn't be done.
Just to be clear, I know this isn't entrapment because of course the scammers aren't law officials. I am arguing against his logic. Remember the scammed are typically NOT experts in international financial law. The diplomat in question is arguing to *actually* imprison people for a crime they didn't commit AND for breaking a law they likely didn't know existed (and at least almost certainly don't understand!)
Remember the scammed belived one part of the lie, so it is likely that they might also belive things like "I am just avoiding corrupt government officials" or even "All the risk is on my part, you are not doing anything illegal here, you are just enabling me." Do you really think the scammer is saying "you are taking a tremendous risk here because you are breaking the following laws...?"
Maybe the scammed are being unethical in *some* (no where near all!) cases, but again this guys is arguing to imprison them. But of course he doen't really mean for this to happen, he is just providing political cover for his own country!
As for people being scammed because they are dumb, that is in a sense true. Many people not at the top of their game get scammed. Elderly, sick or otherwise impared and/or desperate. No, if this guy wants to do the right thing, he should fight for extridition.
There is a reason for laws against entrapment. Also in many of these scams they try to make it look like you are doing the "honorable" thing to help avoid some corrupt government. Now if they said something like "help use move this money so we can buy weapons and kill civilians" maybe I would be more sympathetic. A little too self serving of a comment from Nigeria.
"> The energy from this decay melted the early earth.
No it didn't. Gravitiopotential from infalling rocks did.
> Look up the term "iron catastrophe" for more information.
Yes, please do so...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_catastrophe
Maury"
Maybe, maybe not, read more on the subject. While our knowledge may have expanded from when I was in college, what I learned was in falling rocks heated the earth some but so did short lived radioactive elements (BTW, it is also radioactive elements that are keeping the earth's center hot today. By definition, ones with half lives about or less than the age of earth would have been more abundant at the time.) I should have made a longer post, but we currently are not sure if the Iron Catastrophe would have happed without the short term isotopes.
Of course the isotopes are easy to prove by looking at old meteors (kind of like carbon dating)
So I think my main point stands, the earth has 1 and possibly more unlikely events in it's creation.
While there may be lots of systems like Sol, there is really no reason to expect there are. Here is another difference, our system formed shortly after a near by supernova. How do we know this? Because of the decay remnants from short lived isotopes in meteors. Because the isotopes are so short lived and occur in such relatively large numbers we know the supernova must have been recent. The energy from this decay melted the early earth. That, btw, is why most of the iron is in the center.
Look up the term "iron catastrophe" for more information.
Of course, the universe is pretty big I hear so if you look far enough you will find another earth I guess. Still, keep good care of the planet we have. It just might be really valuable.
Though I got branded as a troll and as "not Understanding" modern communication systems last time I posted this, I will try again. We need to be prepared with ways to shut down major communication lines to countries engaged in hostilities in the case of cyber battles. Yes, the combatants may be using systems outside their country, but unless the hacker is stationed outside also you can't give orders to your bot net or remote hacking system with out an internet connection or magic.
I know network systems are large and complicated, but they are not infinitely so and could be designed or at least analyzed in advance with one eye at national boundaries. Even satellite systems have to be over some country and receiving signals from a definable physical area. I freely admit it becomes a VERY blunt hammer, but if nations are at war and real people are dying I wouldn't think twice about cutting off an aggressor nation's service. (Maybe we would leave some kind of system in place for our own purposes, for example maybe WE want to know what is going on, but that should be our decision.) The blunt hammer nature would just be additional pressure stop the attack.
For all of you who told me this was impossible, looks like Russia was able to do this in part to Georgia!
As has been noted, WAR needs to not go head to head with WOTLK. They need to get people, if not angry with WOW, maybe a little bored and willing to at least try something new. So as a marketing strategy this is just fine. Also they seem to offer something new and interesting. I don't think they really see themselves as a WoW killer (you can't for a few more years), but hope to play in the same league. Also they focus on PvP so they are trying for a subtly different market.
Missing content isn't really a problem (OK, with the way they set up side symatry, missing 4 classes might be an issue, but missing tank is no better than missing healing or dps). So long as you keep adding content and there is stuff to do at the start you are fine.
BUT, if they rush a buggy unpleasant game out the door, they can just kiss their money good bye. That is what they should really be worried about. Also they shoudl worry about if it is actually fun.
While it is VERY silly to expect EBay to prevent all counterfeit items AND that whole resale of trademarked items is scary, it might point out a flaw in their business model. Consider a "consignment" store or pawn shop that takes a cut of each sale and is stocked with stolen and fake items. Eventually, if you have enough of this nonsense, I think it is fair to consider that store a fence and not a legitimate business.
The more EBay takes a "cut" of each sale, the more they become part of the transaction. Perhaps a flat fee. I am sure EBay wants to make as much profit as possible, but if they become a party to each transaction they can't help but take on some liability.
I wonder if this ruling will really hold over time. While the current Supreme Court can chose to uphold various other weapon control laws, as a legal precident it may have many unforseen cosequences.
Remeber, it is the right to bear *ARMS* not *JUST* guns in the Constitution! That means knives, swords, chainguns, flamethrowers, tanks, weaponized anthrax, and nuclear weapons. Now of course many of those are not suitable for home defense, but the question is can the government regulate the TYPE of arms you possess. I assume there will never be agreement about what should go on the list, but is it possible to agree about who should make it? Why is a handgun in some way special in the category of arms, why would possession of a shotgun or rifle not be sufficient for self defense? Do you need a weapon you can easily hide? If you can leagaly bring a weapon somewhere, why do you need one that can be hidden?
Does anyone know? Does there have to be some kind of catch all pardon from the President or something at the end of his term? (I hearby pardon all members of the Whitehouse staff of all crimes) That thing about firing Federal Attorney's who wouldn't procecute opponents of the White House during elections seems like something that shouldn't be just dropped.
What do you get when you make a machine think like a person? A computer that loses it's car keys. Not only is the task of making a machine think like a person difficult, we have plenty of things that think "like" people, people. It isn't supprising that the first benefits are coming from superior human interfaces and having computers focus on doing well what we do poorly. Would a "super computer" really be "super smart"? Could it beat out millions of human brains working on a problem in parallel? AI will bring great things in the future, but a little thought into the subject shows that we may not get exactly what we might first expect...
Frankly, because of stuff like this, we need to be prepared to use a variation of the old Internet Death Sentence. Hostile nations could be removed from the routing tables (i.e. we don't route traffic to or from them). With international cooperation attacks like this *could* be stopped dead in their tracks, with the side benefit that the offending nation would have a high priority desire to clean up the attacks.
Just another tool you need to keep in your toolbelt.
IANAL but, doesn't someone have to be informed in some way it is in apppropriate to use a network before it is illegal? Home networks are one thing, just because I unlock my front door, doesn't mean you can walk in, but bussiness are another matter. In the case of a business, in unlocking your front door you DO mean for the world to come in. Of course you *hope* people will buy stuff and reserve to right to ask someone not to come back, BUT you need to be clear because an assumed invitation exists. Or am I wrong?
The position paper lists out a whole host of issues, IPV6, fair internet pricing for all countries, internet crime, freedom of information, and a lot of other similar issues. (It is an easy read, I recommend it). Over all, it didn't seem like control of the root servers would allow you to deal with nearly any of the listed issues. How on earth can control of the root DNS servers prevent email scam letters? Really all that seemed to happen is everyone listed their list of issues in a single paper and decided that the first step to solving it would be to control the DNS servers.
I think most people reading this will agree with me that control of the DNS servers won't solve any of this. At best you could try to use your control as leverage to get what you want (i.e. cut off service), but if you actually do this you splinter the internet and all the IT workers start scrambling to make patches to get around what you did!
If the paper had limited itself to questions of domain name ownership, it might have been worth considering, but as written I can't support their policy. Whoever controls the root DNS servers should be worried about two things only. Keeping them running and figuring out fair ways to pass out domain names.
The only thing even remotely related was IPV6, maybe. But my understanding is the root servers aren't holding it back, it is all the routers that need to be reconfigured. I know that the U.S. got the lion's share of the IPV4 addresses. It was just because we were first. But everyone knows that "if you build it, we will come!" start laying down an IPV6 infrastructure and the U.S. will join rather than be left behind.