I think you meant to write "They don't do that yet".
I'm not willing to trust every US government forever with the ability to turn off parts of the internet they don't like. In fact, I wouldn't trust any government to do that. If we pass it to some semblance of an impartial, global organisation, we have a better chance of that control defaulting to a more universal level where everyone accepts it, or at least has few problems with it.
The countries picked in the (as usual) inflammatory summary are only examples of countries that have other ideas for the internet. They do not, and would not, have complete control over the internet if control was passed to the UN. However, right now, one country has control of the large majority of TLDs, and also has the power to create/remove TLDs - the US. When this means they get to act on their own laws against citizens of other countries without due process, that is dangerous. When they actually do that, and disable access to foreign websites hosted in other countries with no recourse under international law, which has happened, I struggle very hard to define that as anything other than abuse of power.
However, I clearly owe you an apology. I didn't realise pointing out things that actually happened, and then deriving potential motivations, was a sign that I'm "reflexively hating on the US". I was positive that I was allowed to have critical opinions on any government that I derive from facts and logical thinking, but that's offended your sensibilities. Let this be my last word on the subject, in case I say more and you actually physically explode with rage.
The only reason you're arguing in favor of giving them more power is because you think knee-jerk anti-Americanism makes you cool and edgy
I'm arguing that giving any one country all the power to control an international resource like the internet is a bad idea in both the short and the long term. It doesn't matter how democratic you think that country is right now - their standards are not necessarily your standards, and other people also have different moral values too. In any country where copyright laws are different from the US, ripping.com domains off the internet for US copyright violation is indistinguishable from censorship.
some blathering about China
Nobody advocating granted all power over the internet to China, either.
Grow the hell up and stop reflexively hating on the US, or else you'll end up supporting the very sort of Orwellian control you hope to avoid.
Calm the fuck down and try reading what I wrote, rather than letting what you think I think enrage you.
So you think that having all of the above-mentioned countries controlling the Internet would be better?
The above mentioned countries were only mentioned because those are the states you're scared of.
My point is mainly that the US government is trying to say "Hey, don't let these guys control the internet - they might be as bad or worse than we've already proved ourselves to be!"
I'm sorry, which government was it that started seizing.com domains without warning?
The article itself is full of "could allow", "might allow", "tries to" language that never goes quite far enough to say that things will definitely pan out the way the US government wants you to think it will. The US is scared that it's own control will be eroded by others. Given the way they've abused that control, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to see what other people make of it.
The reason there's no "-1 Shill" mod is because there is absolutely no proof that these are paid posts, and it wouldn't matter if they were or not.This could just as easily be someone with a personal agenda, or a troll who loves reading reams of "you got paid to write that waaaaa" posts that inevitably follow a swiftly written, pro-Microsoft post. And yes, there is a "-1 Spam". If you think the point has been made too many times before, use "-1 Redundant".
What you're really asking for, is "-1 Inconvenient to my View of the World", which is not going to happen. I suggest people, including you, stick to answering the posts for their content and not for their source. In the end, it doesn't matter if they're paid for or not - if the post is inaccurate, refute it. If you disagree, argue. Don't, however, cry about that fact that a post you don't like ended up higher than yours. It doesn't come across as reasonable discussion, it comes across as complaining for the sake of it.
If I did that, I'd have missed out on Ender's Game after Orson Scott Card asked everyone to rise up and overthrow any US government that threatened to allow gay marriage. It's a great book, and I don't have to agree with his own agendas to think so.
What the hell are you talking about? She was invited to a radio show where they discussed theoretical ways of dealing with futuristic combat. That is exactly where people should throw things to see what sticks. Further to that, she didn't write anything about this. The article was written by the BBC about the show she was in.
The problem here is you've been suckered in by yet another inflammatory article on Slashdot that mentions her suggestion as if it's her core belief, but then fails to mention she later admits it wouldn't work.
If you feel like pointing out the ITU document that states that DC-HSDPA is a 4G standard, I'll gladly read it. Otherwise, you're straying from the point.
"This is a new release. These are the notable new features. These are the notable bug fixes. Here's where to get it if you haven't already."
What we got was:
"This is a new release and it makes me HARD. OH MY GOD. IT'S SO INCREDIBLE THAT MY PANTS ARE BULGING JUST THINKING ABOUT IT. HURNNNNNNNGGGGGGGG AND I'M DONE."
I can't agree. All they've done is create a scenario by which the UK government can say "See! We told you we need to stop these people!"
People were already railing against the new laws regarding data retention, it didn't need a protest and it definitely didn't need a group if stupid kids making it worse.
What are the wrong reasons? Was it not a fun, enjoyable, worthwhile game? Regardless of ignorable bugs (and I really mean ignorable, unless you have a speed hack on it's hard to move so fast that chunks fail to appear) then it seems to me like it does exactly what it's supposed to.
Having a couple of technical gripes about the game doesn't stop it being a good game.
- Uses Java to release a game on several platforms at once without having to recode - Makes tens of millions of dollars - Generates burgeoning community of modders and players - Wins several major gaming awards including a BAFTA - Labelled as incompetent by random Slashdotter
Yeah, sounds like April Fools Day to me.
(Incidentally, if you're on a 64-bit OS, get the 64-bit version of Java. Any stuttering there was vanished completely for me.)
The problem here is that MegaUpload were allegedly fully aware that the highest paid accounts were transferring copyrighted material, as they shared those links with each other. There's nothing illegal about the system itself, but the abuse of the system and the administrators being aware and supporting its abuse certainly is.
He's not saying he doesn't have any morals. He's saying that they haven't failed at all, seeing as the only thing that they've done wrong is betray morals that they literally cannot have.
Frand-type patents involve technologies that are deemed to be part of an industry standard. In this case Motorola's innovation is deemed crucial to the GPRS data transmission standard used by GSM cellular networks across the world.
Companies must offer Frand-type patents for a reasonable fee to anyone willing to pay.
Apple had previously said it would be willing to pay the fee going forward, but the two firms dispute how much Apple should pay for failing to license the technology up until now. Missed payments are not covered by the "reasonable" rule, and Motorola is able to demand a more expensive price.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you meant to write "They don't do that yet".
I'm not willing to trust every US government forever with the ability to turn off parts of the internet they don't like. In fact, I wouldn't trust any government to do that. If we pass it to some semblance of an impartial, global organisation, we have a better chance of that control defaulting to a more universal level where everyone accepts it, or at least has few problems with it.
The countries picked in the (as usual) inflammatory summary are only examples of countries that have other ideas for the internet. They do not, and would not, have complete control over the internet if control was passed to the UN. However, right now, one country has control of the large majority of TLDs, and also has the power to create/remove TLDs - the US. When this means they get to act on their own laws against citizens of other countries without due process, that is dangerous. When they actually do that, and disable access to foreign websites hosted in other countries with no recourse under international law, which has happened, I struggle very hard to define that as anything other than abuse of power.
However, I clearly owe you an apology. I didn't realise pointing out things that actually happened, and then deriving potential motivations, was a sign that I'm "reflexively hating on the US". I was positive that I was allowed to have critical opinions on any government that I derive from facts and logical thinking, but that's offended your sensibilities. Let this be my last word on the subject, in case I say more and you actually physically explode with rage.
I'm not American, so it's fairly unlikely that I'll vote in your elections.
The only reason you're arguing in favor of giving them more power is because you think knee-jerk anti-Americanism makes you cool and edgy
I'm arguing that giving any one country all the power to control an international resource like the internet is a bad idea in both the short and the long term. It doesn't matter how democratic you think that country is right now - their standards are not necessarily your standards, and other people also have different moral values too. In any country where copyright laws are different from the US, ripping .com domains off the internet for US copyright violation is indistinguishable from censorship.
some blathering about China
Nobody advocating granted all power over the internet to China, either.
Grow the hell up and stop reflexively hating on the US, or else you'll end up supporting the very sort of Orwellian control you hope to avoid.
Calm the fuck down and try reading what I wrote, rather than letting what you think I think enrage you.
So you think that having all of the above-mentioned countries controlling the Internet would be better?
The above mentioned countries were only mentioned because those are the states you're scared of.
My point is mainly that the US government is trying to say "Hey, don't let these guys control the internet - they might be as bad or worse than we've already proved ourselves to be!"
I'm sorry, which government was it that started seizing .com domains without warning?
The article itself is full of "could allow", "might allow", "tries to" language that never goes quite far enough to say that things will definitely pan out the way the US government wants you to think it will. The US is scared that it's own control will be eroded by others. Given the way they've abused that control, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to see what other people make of it.
The reason there's no "-1 Shill" mod is because there is absolutely no proof that these are paid posts, and it wouldn't matter if they were or not.This could just as easily be someone with a personal agenda, or a troll who loves reading reams of "you got paid to write that waaaaa" posts that inevitably follow a swiftly written, pro-Microsoft post. And yes, there is a "-1 Spam". If you think the point has been made too many times before, use "-1 Redundant".
What you're really asking for, is "-1 Inconvenient to my View of the World", which is not going to happen. I suggest people, including you, stick to answering the posts for their content and not for their source. In the end, it doesn't matter if they're paid for or not - if the post is inaccurate, refute it. If you disagree, argue. Don't, however, cry about that fact that a post you don't like ended up higher than yours. It doesn't come across as reasonable discussion, it comes across as complaining for the sake of it.
Someone mod this the hell up. More than half of the comments here are a gross overreaction to a misleading summary.
If I did that, I'd have missed out on Ender's Game after Orson Scott Card asked everyone to rise up and overthrow any US government that threatened to allow gay marriage. It's a great book, and I don't have to agree with his own agendas to think so.
What the hell are you talking about? She was invited to a radio show where they discussed theoretical ways of dealing with futuristic combat. That is exactly where people should throw things to see what sticks. Further to that, she didn't write anything about this. The article was written by the BBC about the show she was in.
The problem here is you've been suckered in by yet another inflammatory article on Slashdot that mentions her suggestion as if it's her core belief, but then fails to mention she later admits it wouldn't work.
If you feel like pointing out the ITU document that states that DC-HSDPA is a 4G standard, I'll gladly read it. Otherwise, you're straying from the point.
DC-HSDPA is not a 4G network - it is part of 3GPP.
This is a news website. The summary should be:
"This is a new release. These are the notable new features. These are the notable bug fixes. Here's where to get it if you haven't already."
What we got was:
"This is a new release and it makes me HARD. OH MY GOD. IT'S SO INCREDIBLE THAT MY PANTS ARE BULGING JUST THINKING ABOUT IT. HURNNNNNNNGGGGGGGG AND I'M DONE."
I can't agree. All they've done is create a scenario by which the UK government can say "See! We told you we need to stop these people!"
People were already railing against the new laws regarding data retention, it didn't need a protest and it definitely didn't need a group if stupid kids making it worse.
What are the wrong reasons? Was it not a fun, enjoyable, worthwhile game? Regardless of ignorable bugs (and I really mean ignorable, unless you have a speed hack on it's hard to move so fast that chunks fail to appear) then it seems to me like it does exactly what it's supposed to.
Having a couple of technical gripes about the game doesn't stop it being a good game.
I replied to the wrong comment. I need modding as "-1, Idiot".
So:
- Uses Java to release a game on several platforms at once without having to recode
- Makes tens of millions of dollars
- Generates burgeoning community of modders and players
- Wins several major gaming awards including a BAFTA
- Labelled as incompetent by random Slashdotter
Yeah, sounds like April Fools Day to me.
(Incidentally, if you're on a 64-bit OS, get the 64-bit version of Java. Any stuttering there was vanished completely for me.)
The problem here is that MegaUpload were allegedly fully aware that the highest paid accounts were transferring copyrighted material, as they shared those links with each other. There's nothing illegal about the system itself, but the abuse of the system and the administrators being aware and supporting its abuse certainly is.
I don't want to fire in the old cliché of "OMG A SENSIBLE COURT DECISION", but it's nice to see common sense employed.
This isn't about rights, it's about whats legal and what's not
I was responding to his assertion that being an asshole in his general area was infringing his "liberty", which is just silly.
The best thing, I think, is to crowdsource the jamming
A good idea, except when you introduce the critical failure point - people. Someone will hoard devices and then press the button on all of them :)
You don't have a human right to a quiet bus ride.
He's not saying he doesn't have any morals. He's saying that they haven't failed at all, seeing as the only thing that they've done wrong is betray morals that they literally cannot have.
Got you! Using the power of de-anonymisation, I have discovered there you are none other than...
Bicx!
This stuff really works.
As mentioned above, the 'reasonable' part doesn't apply if you don't pay when you should.
Source for the second (and hopefully last) time :)
Source.
Frand-type patents involve technologies that are deemed to be part of an industry standard. In this case Motorola's innovation is deemed crucial to the GPRS data transmission standard used by GSM cellular networks across the world.
Companies must offer Frand-type patents for a reasonable fee to anyone willing to pay.
Apple had previously said it would be willing to pay the fee going forward, but the two firms dispute how much Apple should pay for failing to license the technology up until now. Missed payments are not covered by the "reasonable" rule, and Motorola is able to demand a more expensive price.