The money cities make on "production costs" are fees, fines, insurance, etc., paid to the goverment. When politicians say a movie benefits "the economy" they mean it in the only way an economy can be accurately measured -- taxes.
I was going to say something about that. I was in Shibuya district on an ordinary day (and night) and it made Time's square on New Years Eve look like a ghost town.
The Matrix Reloaded producers want to fly a helicopter at a death defying 600 feet off the ground! in Sydney and someone said "You'd have to shut down the whole city to do that.
They did a lot more cooler stuff with a bus and a helicopter in Swordfish, in LA. Without shutting the city down.
The beauty of it is, that you can vote for Al Gore in a couple more years, and if he gets enough votes, he'll be president, and then you can feel comfortable jacking off while you have a president who can pronounce technologically savvy. Even if he sounds like a wind-up toy swallowing a codfish when he's saying it.
Because the entire rest of the world (including you) would rather have the US goverment governing them than any other existing goverment, including their own.
The reason the US is so powerful is because they are so highly regarded.
ICANN is not an international body. The four international representatives (along with the elected american one) were dismissed by the incumbant board. the last remnants of the old republic, etc. -- oh yeah, there wasn't an old republic to start with
Lawsuits are not supposed to create laws. In that case, you have individuals who were appointed (not elected) for life, who have no consequences for their actions, who are *very* easily bribed, making the laws. The single greatest innovation of the US constitution was the separation of powers. The judiciary DOES NOT make laws.
1) We are going to allow domains registered under those TLDs to be maintained by their owners 2) We are going to take back domains and give them to those who bribe us or share our political views.
Jeez--theft does not even out a "material wealth disparity!" Is that the kind of shit do they teach you in those re-education camps these days? It's the other way around. John Gotti and Joseph Stalin and Che Guavera and Adolph Hitler were not Robin Hood! They weren't poor and they did nothing to egalitarianize wealth.
because the US government owns and operates the internet, maybe?
If you don't like it, start your own network. And I actually encourage you to do so. If this could really happen (hint, it's only one senator, ICANN can afford the other 99), it would be the best thing that could happen for the internet, if the US government actually had any sense left. Not so long ago, it was the fairest institution in existence. As it is, it might nudge us toward a less centralized DNS, which would be a good thing.
But in reality, he might just be shaking the tree, possibly unwittingly, to fill the party coffers.
The thing is that you can't make every server and workstation identical. You can try. You can come close. But the thing is, that a heterogenous network will be more robust. For one, it forces you to use common denominators (like TCP/IP and sh) and not rely on specific solutions. It is always that one exception to whatever rules you try to enforce that takes most of the time. One manager has an oddball VPN, or a mission critical app has to get through the firewall just so.
Someone mentioned a mixed network exposes hidden bugs quicker. I'd say that's a good thing.
I think its worth the price of learning multiple vendor hardware/config/layouts and spending more time with patches. Is there anything else that a mixed environment imposes? I haven't seen it in this discussion.
funny, I was thinking I should give up trying to become an admin and open a used book store. I've got enough inventory. From a dog-eared (and oil-stained) K&R to my shiny new Craig Hunt series.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the world coming to when people think tripe like Mathew Broderick vs. the size-changing CGI script is even a "mediocre" movie.
You know they did the light sabers in star wars without Computer Graphics (what is does the "I" stand for, again?)
The money cities make on "production costs" are fees, fines, insurance, etc., paid to the goverment. When politicians say a movie benefits "the economy" they mean it in the only way an economy can be accurately measured -- taxes.
Ooh...thousands of dollars a month!
I was going to say something about that. I was in Shibuya district on an ordinary day (and night) and it made Time's square on New Years Eve look like a ghost town.
not kung fu movies!
We can make allowances for "chick" "kung fu" movies.
The Matrix Reloaded producers want to fly a helicopter at a death defying 600 feet off the ground! in Sydney and someone said "You'd have to shut down the whole city to do that.
They did a lot more cooler stuff with a bus and a helicopter in Swordfish, in LA. Without shutting the city down.
and that is a sad state of affairs, indeed.
The beauty of it is, that you can vote for Al Gore in a couple more years, and if he gets enough votes, he'll be president, and then you can feel comfortable jacking off while you have a president who can pronounce technologically savvy. Even if he sounds like a wind-up toy swallowing a codfish when he's saying it.
Because the entire rest of the world (including you) would rather have the US goverment governing them than any other existing goverment, including their own.
The reason the US is so powerful is because they are so highly regarded.
ICANN is not an international body. The four international representatives (along with the elected american one) were dismissed by the incumbant board. the last remnants of the old republic, etc. -- oh yeah, there wasn't an old republic to start with
Lawsuits are not supposed to create laws. In that case, you have individuals who were appointed (not elected) for life, who have no consequences for their actions, who are *very* easily bribed, making the laws. The single greatest innovation of the US constitution was the separation of powers. The judiciary DOES NOT make laws.
That's what we need, a minimum of beaurocracy with the sole function of deciding what the outcome of every vote.
It's called a dictator, and it's much more efficient if he dispenses with the pretense of counting ballots and just pronounces decrees.
The US government is the only reason you have, or have even heard of free speech.
ICANN has been particularly effective in suppressing domains like that. That is, in fact, the number one complaint against them.
It's in Oregon. Matt Groenig is from Springfield, Oregon. He went to Thurston High School and then to Evergreen State college in Olympia, Washington.
There is one other (small) issue:
1) We are going to allow domains registered under those TLDs to be maintained by their owners
2) We are going to take back domains and give them to those who bribe us or share our political views.
I'm waiting to see when the Republican party starts calling itself the Republicanic party.
the US is becoming a fairly small portion of Internet users...but is currently still the overwhelming majority.
The US goverment is what happens to democratically elected bodies when the people electing them are stupid and wrong.
and within .com. .net, .org, .edu, .mil, .gov .cz, .tv, .museum, etc.
and
and all the other domains run on the US goverment root servers.
Jeez--theft does not even out a "material wealth disparity!" Is that the kind of shit do they teach you in those re-education camps these days? It's the other way around. John Gotti and Joseph Stalin and Che Guavera and Adolph Hitler were not Robin Hood! They weren't poor and they did nothing to egalitarianize wealth.
because the US government owns and operates the internet, maybe?
If you don't like it, start your own network. And I actually encourage you to do so. If this could really happen (hint, it's only one senator, ICANN can afford the other 99), it would be the best thing that could happen for the internet, if the US government actually had any sense left. Not so long ago, it was the fairest institution in existence. As it is, it might nudge us toward a less centralized DNS, which would be a good thing.
But in reality, he might just be shaking the tree, possibly unwittingly, to fill the party coffers.
The thing is that you can't make every server and workstation identical. You can try. You can come close. But the thing is, that a heterogenous network will be more robust. For one, it forces you to use common denominators (like TCP/IP and sh) and not rely on specific solutions. It is always that one exception to whatever rules you try to enforce that takes most of the time. One manager has an oddball VPN, or a mission critical app has to get through the firewall just so.
Someone mentioned a mixed network exposes hidden bugs quicker. I'd say that's a good thing.
I think its worth the price of learning multiple vendor hardware/config/layouts and spending more time with patches. Is there anything else that a mixed environment imposes? I haven't seen it in this discussion.
Sysadmin time is cheap. Any decent admin has tons of free time. Sysadmin motivation... ah, that's the trick.
funny, I was thinking I should give up trying to become an admin and open a used book store. I've got enough inventory. From a dog-eared (and oil-stained) K&R to my shiny new Craig Hunt series.