Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:17 UTC
Internet & Networking At PrepCom3, a dramatic last-minute deal drawn up by the EU may mark the end of the US government's control of the internet. In essence, [the EU called for] a new version of the current overseeing body ICANN and an end to the US government's overall control of the DNS. The US was scathing about the proposals, within minutes telling delegates that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that would prevent it from having overall control of the internet. Other countries, like Brazil, China, Iran and Cuba support the proposal. Brazil's ambassador outlined: "It is not a question of being anti-ICANN, it's about having a very clear and open and democratic and inclusive mechanism of overview of certain functions that today are performed by ICANN with no kind of supervision."
Order by: Score:
Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Funny to hear the term democratic being used by countries as China, Iran and Cuba...

Reply Score: 5

v RE: Democratic?
by Budd on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:32 UTC in reply to "Democratic?"
RE[2]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

also strange the a supposed Democratic country whos govt doesn't practice democracy in anything that it does

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

also strange the a supposed Democratic country whos govt doesn't practice democracy in anything that it does

But then that applies to any big democratic country, namely the US, Brazil, the UK, France...

Reply Score: 0

v RE[2]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:37 UTC in reply to "Democratic?"
RE[3]: Democratic?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:37 UTC in reply to "Democratic?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

These were the words of the Brazilian ambassador, speaking for the entire "Likeminded Group", and since Brazil is a democracy, they do make sense.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Democratic?"
RE[4]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 02:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Iran, China and Cuba BAN THE WORD DEMOCRACY FROM GOOGLE, YAHOO, MSN AND ALL INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES. Still make sense to you?

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 05:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

actually this is completly un-realistic, as they would control SOME of the domain names, and not the content of every private server on the internet.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Democratic?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:40 UTC in reply to "Democratic?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There, I changed the teaser to better reflect the content of the article. Sorry for the fcuk-up, guys.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[5]: Democratic?
by Whats That There on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Democratic?"
RE: Democratic?
by progster on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:45 UTC in reply to "Democratic?"
progster Member since:
2005-07-27

well we also think that about america....

I for one see this as a positive move, one country should not have full control over a global network.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I for one see this as a positive move, one country should not have full control over a global network.

I honestly think the reason is stupid (pardon the bluntness). If it's working OK, leave it as it is. If not, change it. But simply to claim 1 country shouldn't have full control of it is, er, envy. The US built it, the US rule it. If the US come to misuse it, then think of changes.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[2]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Democratic?"
RE: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:58 UTC in reply to "Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yeah right - because the wonderful free country that is USA is so incredibly democratic, especially when it comes to other nations around the world ... give me a break !

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You should move to cuba my friend, then you will appreciate what means living in the western world.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Democratic?
by justme on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:48 UTC in reply to "Democratic?"
justme Member since:
2005-07-21

Democracy is about giving everyone an equal right in the decision making process. What country is the dictator in this case ?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Maybe it's just me, but if that is your feeling why don't you and your country come up with your own internet and use that?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The problem with that is, that many countries have worked on the internet - so when we create fully our own can we take back our pieces?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Democratic?
by morgoth on Sat 1st Oct 2005 00:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Democratic?"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Absolutely. I see no reason why the US should be in control of a global thing. Period.

Quite simply, let everyone else create a global internet and stop the "US internet" from accessing it. See how long the US lives then. If US companies don't want to comply and come across, they'll lose web presence, and ultimately sales.

The US isn't a true democracy anyways - the only true democracy is Switzerland, where EVERY single person (voting age of course) gets the opportunity to vote on EVERY single piece of leglisation. That's true democracy. BTW, is the patriot Act really democratic? Nope. DMCA? Nope. The patriot act protects the US government, with no respect for US citizens, the DMCA protects large corporate media interests, at the expense of the US citizens. That's not democracy. Far, far, far, far from it.

There's a reason why the US is so despised in many other countries in the world.

Dave

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Democratic?
by japail on Sat 1st Oct 2005 05:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Democratic?"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Democracy doesn't mean "things I like." It doesn't imply liberty, happy fun kittens, or anything else. It doesn't magically make things better. And if there is one thing that the U.S. and its citizenry has no problem with, it's practicing pseudo-isolationism. If you think people from the U.S. on average spend their time accessing foreign websites, I think you're grossly underestimating how unilingual and they are. Also any schism that isolated the U.S. is going to irritate people outside of the U.S. about as much (more?).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Democratic?
by Adam A on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:21 UTC in reply to "Democratic?"
Adam A Member since:
2005-07-07

Iran is a democracy. However, because of their religious viewpoints they volountarily vote away freedoms to theocratic religious leaders.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Nope. Iran is not a democracy.

The religious leaders are those who decided which candidates you can vote on, and they decide which law passes. If they don't like a law they put down a veto, and that's the end of that law. And the religious leaders are not up for election.

So, no. Iran is not a democracy.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 10:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Oviously you haven´t ever unterstood what the word democracy means and how it works.

Fixing elections like on the last one is not considered democracy.

Reply Score: 0

If you ban this term for them,
by ilyak on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:36 UTC
ilyak
Member since:
2005-07-13

They'll never convert to liberality.

So yes, give up control to the all world.

Reply Score: 2

As seen from elsewhere...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

To the eyes of the 95% people on earth who are not US Americans, the current situation is absurd. Why should the net be ruled by an American organism ? A possible answer is "because the US was its main contributor until the late 90's" but this is not a good reason why the US should be granted that privilege forever.

I have nothing against the ICANN or America, and I don't especially like the UN, I'm just pointing out why one may wish to ask America to share the control of the Internet with other nations.

Reply Score: 5

RE: As seen from elsewhere...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:58 UTC in reply to "As seen from elsewhere..."
Anonymous Member since:
---


I have nothing against the ICANN or America, and I don't especially like the UN, I'm just pointing out why one may wish to ask America to share the control of the Internet with other nations.

Because us americans are obviously superior to everyone else ;)

Anyway, I'd love to see this happen. This government is overstepping its bounds in so many ways it's annoying...

-bytecoder

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: As seen from elsewhere...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 15:22 UTC in reply to "As seen from elsewhere..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

The US "contributed" to the internet? The US created it for crying out loud... But with their view on technology (you know, wanting to control, tax, and profit of every single bit of anything they can), maybe it is good to spread the control.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: As seen from elsewhere...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: As seen from elsewhere..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

No, USA did not create the internet. However, they started a net, which evolved into the internet with contributions from scientistfrom all over the world.

Nobody can claim to have created the internet.

Mankind created the internet!

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: As seen from elsewhere...
by kmarius on Fri 30th Sep 2005 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: As seen from elsewhere..."
kmarius Member since:
2005-06-30

Americans may have started the internet, but it wouldn't be where it is today without contributions from other countries. A lot of academic institutions across the globe (at least N-America + Europe) have shared the net for quite some time. You're looking at an example of this now - WWW was not invented in USA.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: As seen from elsewhere...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:55 UTC
RE[2]: As seen from elsewhere...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE: As seen from elsewhere..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

<We've seen how well the UN works......>

yeah. And thanks to Katrina we've seen how well america works.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: As seen from elsewhere...
by bn-7bc on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 11:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: As seen from elsewhere..."
bn-7bc Member since:
2005-09-04

not to defend FEMA or anything, but tha fact is (at least as FOX NEWS presented it (plz dont star a flame war about fox)) that FEMA is supposed to coordibate thr cooperation between local, stade abd federal resources, but they have no authorety to order anyone round.

What cold have bien done was for bush to federalise the national gard. My knowlage stops here (I'm a norvegian).
Is it possible for the president to order a manetory evaquation or is that op to the mayor/governor?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Way off topic but that's up to the Governor/Mayor. Basically they're blaming the Federal government when the problems were mostly their own fault, and the fault of those who didn't leave LA when they were told they should. Michael Brown didn't really do a bad job, he was seriously screwed because he trusted the local government to not suck. Also, Kenya West is a retard.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[2]: As seen from elsewhere...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE: As seen from elsewhere..."
?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 11:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

is it possible to just set up a new rival service?

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:00 UTC
RE[2]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Sounds like someone is taking hollywood war films as fact!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Democratic?
by yanik on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Democratic?"
yanik Member since:
2005-07-13

You know this is why everyone hates american.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

No.. everyone hates americans in other countries, because the only people you meet are the rich snop prick that americans hate at home. These are the only ones that can really aford to go abroad.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

No.. everyone hates americans in other countries, because the only people you meet are the rich snob pricks that americans hate at home. These are the only ones that can really aford to go abroad.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

So simply repay the US all the aid they've provided the world since WWI and then set up your own internet.
----------------------------------------------------

I Think you'll find dumb ass that anything that owed has been well paid back long since.

but while you're at can we have back the aid we gave you for Katrina?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Democratic?
by Colonel Panic on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democratic?"
Colonel Panic Member since:
2005-07-28

Sorry a**hole but I live in the NOLA area and I haven't seen any of your precious aid as yet. When it arrives please let me know, till then keep your uniformed piehole shut.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[4]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Democratic?"
RE[5]: Democratic?
by Colonel Panic on Fri 30th Sep 2005 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Democratic?"
Colonel Panic Member since:
2005-07-28

Well Mr Anonymous, if you would please login and show yourself
maybe I would have more respect for you, which at the moment I don't. You missed the point totally. I was referring to the people in the EU for one and was commentting on their FINACIAL aid. Since you were so ignorant as not to specify what kind of aid you administered, I could only comment on what I perceived as US bashing jerk.
I LIVE here, and if I come off as defensive about the the city I love, tuff shit. If you were one of the folks rescuing people you receive my whole-hearted thanks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

idiot^

Yeah, OSNews definitely needs threads, I had no idea what you were responding to. I was a jackass. Didn't realize you were talking about foreign aid ;)

No need to respect me, that was a stupid post - and I tried to cancel it when I realized what you were responding to.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[3]: Democratic?
by Colonel Panic on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democratic?"
v RE[3]: Democratic?
by Colonel Panic on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democratic?"
RE[3]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

All of the aid the US has provided to the world since WW1 pales compared to the amount of money China has lent to the US, to finance our massive budget and trade deficits.
The US is now a debtor, not a creditor.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Democratic?
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 02:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Democratic?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

and this is relevant to a discussion of icann and control of the internet because??????
(waiting)
(waiting)
Thats what i thought.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[2]: Democratic?
by Whats That There on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Democratic?"
RE[3]: Democratic?
by raver31 on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democratic?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

hahaha it is good to see someones subscription to The History Channel is paying dividends.
I seen that programme too though, does that make me sad also ?

Reply Score: 1

democratic??
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

While it would be ideal in a perfect world to cede the control of DNS from the United States to a World body, the realities are slightly different. Firstly.. The U.N. seems woefully unable to do anything besides flap its mouth. Secondly can you imagine a free internet, i.e an uncensored internet from Iran or China?? For crying outloud China has prosucted citizens for having dissenting thoughts on internet boards. Iran.. more of the same. I am an american, and yes.. the current state of affairs here is Disgusting. I have to live with that every single day. But remember this.. if it wasn't for Darpa there would probably be no internet. So before we trash icann and the united states, lets come up with a plan that is more than posturing and bickering.

Reply Score: 2

RE: democratic??
by xrobertcmx on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:11 UTC in reply to "democratic??"
xrobertcmx Member since:
2005-09-21

Now that, makes sense.

Reply Score: 1

RE: democratic??
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:14 UTC in reply to "democratic??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

While it would be ideal in a perfect world to cede the control of DNS from the United States to a World body, the realities are slightly different. Firstly.. The U.N. seems woefully unable to do anything besides flap its mouth. Secondly can you imagine a free internet, i.e an uncensored internet from Iran or China?? For crying outloud China has prosucted citizens for having dissenting thoughts on internet boards. Iran.. more of the same. I am an american, and yes.. the current state of affairs here is Disgusting. I have to live with that every single day. But remember this.. if it wasn't for Darpa there would probably be no internet. So before we trash icann and the united states, lets come up with a plan that is more than posturing and bickering
---------------------------------------------------


While you have some points, that I may or may not agree with, by your comment off

The U.N. seems woefully unable to do anything besides flap its mouth

Pretty up sums up US attitude to the UN, but also it sums up that they actually have very little idea what the UN is all about and are totally clueless on how it operates

Reply Score: 2

RE: democratic??
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:19 UTC in reply to "democratic??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The UN only "flaps it's mouth" ?

That's a US myth dear to your right wing regime, the rest of the world kind of knows otherwise... You have internet, why don't you use it to find out what the UN is actually doing...you'll be surprised.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: democratic??
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE: democratic??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Actually, I agree. And I'm from Denmark.

You're talking like a good ol' marxist, and we all know that they aren't up for any good.

Fact is that UN is based on a good idea, but to many countries opposed to freedom is members of UN.

This often makes UN really slow or even unable to act properly in important issues.

It can be seen in many situations. Israel/Arab world 1948, Balkan-area in the 1990'es (and later), the whole Iraq-mess and so on.

UN: Good idea, bad implementation.

But I'd still prefer the internet to be under world control rather than US-control (I think). But the best would be to put the internet under user control. That would really make a better world.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: democratic??
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE: democratic??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

That opinion of the UN is not the exclusive ground of the jesus freaks here in the US. I'm about as liberal as they come (all for gay marriage, socialized medicine and various ideas from socialism on a whole) however, to say the UN is anything but a giant practical joke is insanity. The UN talks and talks and talks and never, ever actually does anything of value. They're perfectly happy to sit back and relax as the world implodes around them. That whole damn mess should be dismantled.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: democratic??
by Manik on Fri 30th Sep 2005 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: democratic??"
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

"he UN talks and talks and talks and never, ever actually does anything of value"

QED. You know nothing about the UN.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: democratic??
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: democratic??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

QED. You know nothing about the UN.

Well he does know... UN is not a driving force in any way. It's more like a black hole where all good intentions disappear.

UN is a good idea that went wrong. Let's try again and see if we can make 3rd attempt to the right attempt.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: democratic??
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 02:43 UTC in reply to "RE: democratic??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The U.S.A. may be ruled by a bunch of "right wing" aparatchiks... but I am a card carrying left winger.. and if you were able to comprehend my post you would have gotten the jist that I oppose the current state of affairs in my country. If you would have read further you would have also gleaned that i do not oppose some sort of ad hoc international group also in the governance of dns. But Iran?? China?? Remember Tien en Men square??

Reply Score: 0

RE: democratic??
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:32 UTC in reply to "democratic??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

In a perfect world there's no reason to do anything anyway; it's already perfect. Duh.

Reply Score: 0

RE: democratic??
by Rapsey on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:41 UTC in reply to "democratic??"
Rapsey Member since:
2005-08-08

Here is a hint for you. The UN can do only what the US allows it to do (because its the most powerfull country). It is as efficient and powerfull as the most powerful countries allow it to be.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: democratic??
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 10:16 UTC in reply to "RE: democratic??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The UN is an outdated and heavily corrupted organisation which has spend 50 years on failures.

China, Iran, and other dictatorships states´ interest on DNS is pure and simple CENSORSHIP.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: democratic??
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:59 UTC in reply to "democratic??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

While it would be ideal in a perfect world to cede the control of DNS from the United States to a World body, the realities are slightly different.

I suppose that you haven't heard of the International Telecommunications Union then. They are responsible for international radio spectrum allocations (among other things). The simple fact of the matter is that international bodies are effective in managing the needs of international communications systems.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: democratic??
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 02:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: democratic??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Thats really great..Now I'm excited!!

Only we arent talking about spectrum allocation or radio are we? No.. we are talking about the internet. Therfore spectrum allocation is .. let me see. how do you say Irellevant!!

Reply Score: 0

RE: democratic??
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 19:03 UTC in reply to "democratic??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"If it wasn't for DARPA. . . "?

In your dreams, sonny. CERN, in Geneva, saw the original WWW proposals. The world's first stored progam computer was built in the UK, and the US has been kidding itself ever since.

There is no reason at all why one country should control in the Internet.

Anon (UK)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: democratic??
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 20:00 UTC in reply to "democratic??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

If it wasn't for the ugh the cavemen there would have been no fire and thus no modern civilisation. I suggest we track down his grand grand grand grand...grand children and hand all power over to them

Reply Score: 0

Points System
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is going to be fun

let me guess to the outcome

45 comments viewed at normal score threshold
150 viewed at -5 ;-)

any takers?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Points System
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:42 UTC in reply to "Points System"
Anonymous Member since:
---

If you made that -2, it would be closer...

As soon as it drops to -2, it is lower than the default threshold. So, quite a few people would have to manually change the threshold to even see everything.

I have to say that I think the underlying issue is much more difficult than simply how much everyone hates US domination. The issue is an economic comodity being controlled by governments (or one government in particular). However the internet started, it is now a consumable product that consumers all over the world have an interest in. But, as with many consumables, people don't always agree about how to distribute and control it.

Reply Score: 0

v democratic
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:11 UTC
.xxx domain
by salmacis on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:15 UTC
salmacis
Member since:
2005-07-06

Let's face it, this issue was settled the moment the moment the introduction of the .xxx domain was delayed. Other countries would have noted how political considerations within America were responsible for an issue that affects the whole world. Whatever you think of the .xxx domain idea (and personally, I think it's crackpot), I think the American government shot itself in the foot with that one.

Reply Score: 4

v democratic
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:18 UTC
Nice flame war....
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Of course the US should give up control of the internet when it's used all over the world. Give it up to the UN, G8, or whatever it's called.

Reply Score: 1

I wish luck to EU's move
by JrezIN on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:51 UTC
JrezIN
Member since:
2005-06-29

Our government [Brazil] pretty much "sucks" right now (IMHO. I'm not going into details as it's besides to topic here)... But when the subject is technology, I don't have much to complain (well, taxes are **too** high... but this problem is related with a lot of others...).

I wish luck to EU's move... for the good of hole the world! =]

Reply Score: 1

Democratic or not
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I won't speak about United State's democracy (I'm also American and not from the USA), neither about Cuba's government. In fact, I think that the issue here is that Internet is the world's net and therefor it should be administered by the whole world.
Someone here critized Cuba, another one Iran. The only posts that have low score are the ones that critize USA. Maybe it's better to talk about politics elsewhere.

Reply Score: 2

v Freedom, Democracy
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:56 UTC
v RE: Freedom, Democracy
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:00 UTC in reply to "Freedom, Democracy"
What US/UN want versus what they need
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 12:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The first thing that the international community wants is control of their own TLDs, which I cannot really argue with. If some Iranian dissident can't get a .ir website, it's the least of his problems. The bigger issue, IP block allocation, is a pain now but will go away when IPv6 finally comes around.
What I don't want is additional regulatory interference or taxation, both of which have been hinted at strongly by ITU delegates. The UN declaration of human rights directly contradicts the U.S. Constitution's first amendment, and I worry that a coalition of governments many/most of which are actually -more- corrupt than America's will have no problem jointly outlawing criticism of government via the internet. Also, the wealthy subsidizing the internet for the rest of the world is BS. The wealthiest countries (most notably America) already poured billions (from tax, mind you) into R&D, and the ISP fees that internet users have been paying thus far filter upstream into the routers and backbones that have already been put into place.
In summary, give the other nations TLD control and a generous slice of the huge amounts of available IPv6 unicast space, but tell the UN/ITU/anybody else to go screw themselves if they want anything more.

Reply Score: 1

elmimmo Member since:
2005-09-17

The UN declaration of human rights directly contradicts the U.S. Constitution's first amendment

Expand please… because I do not see how.

Reply Score: 1

Democratic?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The US is a Constitutional Republic. Why would you want a democracy? That only gives the majority the power of voting away the rights of the minority (See Bush).

Reply Score: 1

Baby is not happy ?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I have 2 kids the same age. When one monopolises a toy at the expense of the other, I make sure that in the end both can have it for an equal share of time. Of course the first one is never happy and cries and moans to keep "his" toy. This and other events demonstrate that the USofA does not want to accept the fact it is not the preferred child of mother Earth and that it must share it with all of its 200 brothers. If I were the mother I would give that baby a slap on the bum to teach him a lesson :-)

Reply Score: 4

v RE: Baby is not happy ?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:49 UTC in reply to "Baby is not happy ?"
Hmmmm
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I know of many issues with ICANN, and I know of various economic meddling regarding the internet. BUT, the stewardship of the Internet has been American.

Based on that, they have not been terrible stewards, and have created a terrific system. Its not without problems, but remains terrific, and moderatly open for all to use.

I am somewhat reticent about the idea that people clamoring for control of the internet include China, and Iran. I personally wish that people would with a wise head take into account how these states use the internet before taking their view into wider account.

No, I don't frankly want China, or Iran to be part of running the net. And you can include about half the UN in that as well. People who point out some valid reasoning for the UN to run things seem horrifically blind to the failings of the UN itself. I'm about as happy with the idea that the UN should gain control of the Internet as I am with China or Iran. And as for the EU, why on earth would you want the anti-business, socialist, communist, trotskyist, global agenda, none democratic, loony left EU gaining a foothold either.

None of which should preclude looking for solutions. I believe within ICANN, and in some other areas of the internet administration, there is the intelligence and independence that would allow an international body to run the internet, without governmental meddling from the US OR Anyone else.

Beyond this, I think that down the line, the current internet will cease to be as it is. Inividual states may decide to go different ways, and IP6 and internet II and other issues are already making movements. I guess time will tell..

AdmV

Reply Score: 0

RE: Hmmmm
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:18 UTC in reply to "Hmmmm"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I Hand some hope there, you started off well but then made a sudden dive for the gutter.


The problem is you view those countrys badly mainly due to the media (some biased, some very biased)

How do you think they percieve your country? yep exactly as you do theres, for as much as you demean other countrys there is a equal share that could be pointed towards the US

Reply Score: 0

re: Democratic?
by Jimbo on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:15 UTC
Jimbo
Member since:
2005-07-22

"That only gives the majority the power of voting away the rights of the minority (See Bush)."

Exactly. The US is very extreme in its belief that all speech should be free. Even in the most liberal EU countries like Germany and France there are some political statements and political symbols that are banned. We're now one step closer to a censored internet.

Reply Score: 0

v amatuer mods
by Whats That There on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:19 UTC
v RE: Hmmmm
by Jimbo on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:23 UTC
RE[2]: Hmmmm
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmmm"
Anonymous Member since:
---

As I said right back at you

Waiko (?)
Columbo kid shootings
Iraq

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Hmmmm
by japail on Sat 1st Oct 2005 07:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmmm"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Columbo shot children? Holy cow. No one ever expects the befuddled ones.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hmmmm
by Jimbo on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmmm"
Jimbo Member since:
2005-07-22

"Waiko (?)
Columbo kid shootings
Iraq"

We don't suppress our own citizens right to protest by running them over with tanks. I really don't see how you can't see a difference between that and 1) a confrontation between the government and a militaristic cult 2) a couple of f--ked up kids and 3) an ill-advised war.

The difference is, with the US in control of the internet you can talk all day about how the Iraq War is evil and America is evil. With China in control, we wouldn't be allowed to talk about what happened at Tiananmen Square at all.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hmmmm
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmmm"
Anonymous Member since:
---

2 Points

1.Tiananmen Square - was many many years ago

2. Right so we want to stop US having complete control but instead (according to you) we are going to give China complete control instead


Yesssssssssssss I seee, try to keep up please

Reply Score: 0

Sharing vs. Giving
by Calvin on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:40 UTC
Calvin
Member since:
2005-07-14

As humans, we understand the need to share, but I don't think you can claim there is a universal duty to give anything that is not needed by others. The US does share the technology it developed, on its own terms. I see no reason to give other coutries something that your nation's resources were used to develope.

Build your own domain system servers, or use ours. Its up to you. If you want to the right to change the rules of our DNS system, offer to buy your way in. If the price is right, any thing is for sale including access and power.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Sharing vs. Giving
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 13:40 UTC in reply to "Sharing vs. Giving"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"""If the price is right, any thing is for sale including access and power."""

The essence of American democracy, and what Bush seeks to promote as the answer to all woes. Unfortunately he's already finding in Afghanistan and Iraq that democracy, like communism, isn't something you can just push down an unwilling population's throats.

Those who cannot remember (Viet Nam) history are doomed to repaet it (in Iraq).

Reply Score: 0

Democracy
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 13:44 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Is it just me who finds it sadly ironic that while the US Government is killing thousands of people around the world in an effort to "spread freedom and democracy" across the globe, they are so inflexible and infantile to world pressure over these issues?

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Democracy
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:58 UTC in reply to "Democracy"
Very good...
by TBPrince on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:00 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, what can I say beside bravo to EU? Someone should understand that the World is changing and that resisting will only make you fall harder.

If US really dislikes that, they can lock themselves out of global network and isolate themselves in their own private network. If they hope to get a grip over the Internet for a long time, they're just out of context.

By the way, this is only a part of a bigger project which also involves Galileo satellite network which recently have been joined by China and Russia.

This is not a political forum so I won't say anything else beside the whole World will benefit from this move. In a few months, EU stopped software patents, contained MS monopoly and protected our interests by making the Internet opener. Not bad.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Very good...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:04 UTC in reply to "Very good..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

reminds me very much of the situation with Kyoto, everyone comes up with sensible proposals but US is the only country that fights even if it means damming everything

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Very good...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Very good..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

>reminds me very much of the situation with Kyoto, everyone comes up with sensible proposals but US is the only country that fights even if it means damming everything


Not only that USA was the only (if i remember well) country against it, being the 1st polluter country in the world.... now you have seen what you are doing. Rita (the hurricane) is a direct consecuence of the warming of the world.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Very good...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very good..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Not only that USA was the only (if i remember well) country against it, being the 1st polluter country in the world.... now you have seen what you are doing. Rita (the hurricane) is a direct consecuence of the warming of the world."

Do you know this because you are educated in meteorology or because you are a mindless boob who just repeats things you see on BBC or hear from Barbara Streisand?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Very good...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very good..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

You do not have any evidence for mankind's pollution being the reason for any global warming.

There are several other candidates. Right now the global temperature is below the average for this particular timeperiod (we're in between two ice ages).

So you don't have any evidence for your claim.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Very good...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Very good..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

So you don't have any evidence for your claim.
------------------------------------



besides a couple of hundred scientists and reports that appear everywhere

but yep you are right, they have nothing compared to what Bush and the Oil companys believe

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Very good...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Very good..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

besides a couple of hundred scientists and reports that appear everywhere

That's no evidence. Besides that there are many scientists opposed to the global warming theory. Not just in USA, but also in Europe.

What Bush and the Oli companies believe don't matter to me. I'm not a US citizen. I'm danish, so what do I care about internal US matters?

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Very good...
by archiesteel on Fri 30th Sep 2005 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Very good..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I disagree with you. There is not direct evidence, but all the models predict an increase in sea temperature...increase which has been now confirmed both through satellite and ground measures.

So, we know the seas are becoming warmer. We also know that temperatures have increased dramatically over the past 100 years. We know glaciers are receding even faster than predicted. We know polar bears are seen in areas they've never been seen before, causing an increase in incidents with human settlements.

BTW, the global temperature is not below the average for this particular time period. I'd be curious to see your sources for this statement, and to verify their credibility (i.e. make sure it's not from a pseudo-environmentalist such as Bjorn Lomborg, who's on the payroll of big oil companies).

The fact is that you're right, there's no direct evidence. So we must therefore evaluate risks vs. consequences of following different courses of action.

We could take the risk that burning fossil fuels does not have an impact on the environment. Let's say it's a 50-50 risk (which, if you look at the high proportion of scientists who believe in global warming, is being very generous to your side). If the majority of scientists who believe in Global Warming are wrong, then we're fine for another 25 years, when higher prices for oil due to lower production and higher demand cripple the world's economy. (I'm being generous by saying 25 years, btw...gas prices were already high before Katrina hit).

If the Global Warming people are right, however, he may face a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. At best, we lost millions of square kilometers of coastal land. At worst, we may face the end of civilization as we know it, and possibly extinction. None of these scenarios are very fun to contemplate.

Now let's look at the same situation, but this time we decide to follow the advice of the majority of scientists (who indeed believe in global warming). If they happen to be wrong, we've known a few years of economic hardship, however we've broken the world's destructive dependence on fossil fuels. If they're right, then we've saved the world.

Without strong evidence, one has to go with calculated risks. The choice is clear: we need to implement Kyoto and go even further, and that means putting serious money into alternative fuel sources, from biodiesel to ethanol to hydrogen. Heck, I still don't understand why funding for fusion research has basically been cut off in most of the Western world...what, are you waiting for the Chinese to figure it out first?

BTW, Kristian, why don't you get an OSNews account? I see you post here often, you should register.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Very good...
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Very good..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

BTW, Kristian, why don't you get an OSNews account? I see you post here often, you should register.

I'd like to. Unfortunately I cannot afford internet access and a profile here at the same time. As a student (Computer Science) I just don't have money enough. And if I had, it would most likely be saved for more hardware ;)

The rest of your post will not be answered in here. It's becoming increasingly off topic and I want to stop that right here.

But a private debate is absolutely welcome ;)

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Very good...
by Ressev on Sat 1st Oct 2005 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Very good..."
Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

I disagree with you. There is not direct evidence, but all the models predict an increase in sea temperature...increase which has been now confirmed both through satellite and ground measures.

So, we know the seas are becoming warmer. We also know that temperatures have increased dramatically over the past 100 years. We know glaciers are receding even faster than predicted. We know polar bears are seen in areas they've never been seen before, causing an increase in incidents with human settlements.


Let us not forget that the polar ice caps on MARS are receeding. So obviously the burnig of fossil fuels on Earth is impacting the whole solar system.

Oh... but wait, maybe the explanation is simpler: the sun is hotter.

Reply Score: 0

v Build Your Own Internet
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:01 UTC
RE: Build Your Own Internet
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:22 UTC in reply to "Build Your Own Internet"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Oh please, please America give us the internet. We don't don't know to build our own. How pathetic. How about the shirt off our backs. When you build something it's yours. The U.S.A. built the internet so we own it. Go get your own. Oh you say you helped. Thanks. If you don't like it then log off.

-----------------------------


Sorry the World Wide Web was actually created by a Brit, so could you please leave the web please, thank you

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Build Your Own Internet
by egan_varley on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Build Your Own Internet"
egan_varley Member since:
2005-09-30

And a french designed the first packet communications network : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pouzin
So Intenet is NOT a US creation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Build Your Own Internet
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 02:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Build Your Own Internet"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, but ETHERNET is a US creation. ARCNET is a US creation.

So please, invent your own means for telecommunication networks.

Reply Score: 0

v Not suprising
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:10 UTC
Democratic
by Colonel Panic on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:17 UTC
Colonel Panic
Member since:
2005-07-28

Sorry about the dupe posts. OSNEWS database is in need of admins.

Reply Score: 0

If it aint broke...
by lasermike026 on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:22 UTC
lasermike026
Member since:
2005-08-19

If it aint broke, don't fix it. Everything is working fine for the majority of people through out the world. We'll talk about changing things when we start seeing problems.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hmmmm
by Jimbo on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:27 UTC
Jimbo
Member since:
2005-07-22

"1.Tiananmen Square - was many many years ago"

16 years is not "many many" in my opinion, especially since most of the people in the Chinese Government at the time are still in that government.

"give China complete control instead"

Uck, no, I was exaggerating to make a point. However, if we doled out votes by population, China would have an immense amount of control.

"Yesssssssssssss I seee, try to keep up please"

I really want to have a reasonable discussion about this, we can politely disagree without unnecessarily demeaning other peoples opinions. Is that possible in a political discussion on OSNews? I sure hope so.

Reply Score: 1

JIMBO
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

problem is you have the rosey picture of your own country compared to others, and while it might be true for some it is for the vast majority. Not every outside of the US Wants to live there or even views it better then there country. As said when the US folks start slinging mud at other countrys there is a hell of a lot lot that can be flung striaght back to you

Reply Score: 0

RE: JIMBO
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 05:23 UTC in reply to "JIMBO"
Anonymous Member since:
---

no-one ever flung anything at any other countries.. As a matter of fact, I think one of the first posts was flinging mud at america... And it also seems that any post that is on the side of america having control is modded down, no matter how relevent. Who is more ignorant here? Perhaps the people modding down other posts because their opinion differs?

Reply Score: 0

RE: JIMBO
by japail on Sat 1st Oct 2005 08:11 UTC in reply to "JIMBO"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

I hate to get involved in this nonsense even a little, but I really can't say that there is any public forum on the Internet, that isn't moderated by zealous individuals, where people (mostly Europeans, but also others from other American countries and elsewhere) don't complain about people from the U.S. or the U.S. altogether. While it's not difficult in some circumstances for people to drum up negative sentiments for other countries in the U.S., for the most part people in the U.S. don't care enough about other countries to go to forums predominately inhabited by members of those countries (especially when they aren't English-speaking forums) and tell them how stupid they or their countries are. They just don't care enough. There are token villains (mostly totalitarian countries that self-identify with Marxism without really embodying it, but there are others as well) that are dismissed for their human rights behavior (mostly in forums hosted in the U.S.), and there are certain people with various political positions that inspire them to spew vitriol toward certain other (mostly European) countries. For the most part, though, no one cares about Belgium or its politics, or even what form of government the Taiwanese have.

People from the U.S. on average are on the receiving end of far more complaints about them and their country by people that don't know them or live there than they return the favor for. If anyone thinks that's going to end with them having a new-found appreciation for other cultures or countries, they're mistaken. Tell them that they're fat, stupid, lazy, arrogant, and be pleasantly surprised by their rationality and affection for you and your people. Or not.

Reply Score: 1

CERN
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Just as a reminder. The internet, as we know it, was invented in the good old Europe -- CERN. USA you want to have your own Internet, go invent it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: CERN
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:38 UTC in reply to "CERN"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The World Wide Web was invented in Europe; the Internet was invented in America (ARPANET).

Reply Score: 0

RE: CERN
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 16:53 UTC in reply to "CERN"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Just as a reminder. The internet, as we know it, was invented in the good old Europe -- CERN. USA you want to have your own Internet, go invent it."

most importantly, the pieces that make it all work (TCP/IP, DNS) were developed here in the United States. The internet is much more than just the World Wide Web.

Reply Score: 0

re: JIMBO
by Jimbo on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:39 UTC
Jimbo
Member since:
2005-07-22

This discussion is not about the totality of American policy, or whether you want to live in America or not. What I'm talking about is the suppression of opinion and censorship of political speech, which America isn't exactly known for.

Reply Score: 1

RE: CERN
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

*cough* true. sorry

Reply Score: 0

RE: CERN
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:44 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

*cough* true. sorry. as the www is the significant part of the internet, we (EU) and the rest of the world have the right to have some right of making decisions.

Reply Score: 0

v Such stupidity
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 14:57 UTC
THE AMERICAN DREAM
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 15:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The general picture given by those defensing the US view on that subject here is that:
- the USA is superior to all other countries, even
when put together
- the USA does not need help from any other countries
- the USA is above International law
- all other countries are communist dictatorships
- all other countries have an eternel debt of
gratitude to the USA after WWII

I wonder how many Vietnams and Katrinas they will need until they realise that the american dream is just that: a dream.
The USA:
- is not superior
- does not own the Internet
- has enjoyed a pretty high return on investment
thanks to WWII
- is a land of inequality where poor black people are
just 5th class citizens
- is a country trampling human rights everyday around
the globe.

Nice!

Of course I expect that post to be modded down very rapidly becasue.... who would really want to interrupt a dream by listening to facts ?

Ciao.

Reply Score: 5

RE: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 15:30 UTC in reply to "THE AMERICAN DREAM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

poor black people are 5th class citizens? wtf are you smoking.. Afirmitive action, better chances of getting a job just because of your race, the ability to be racist pricks and have no-one be offended just because of their race. Hell.. blacks are more racist tword whites than whites are tword blacks..

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

dream on baby

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"poor black people are 5th class citizens? wtf are you smoking.. Afirmitive action, better chances of getting a job just because of your race, the ability to be racist pricks and have no-one be offended just because of their race. Hell.. blacks are more racist tword whites than whites are tword blacks.."

Affirmative action. I hate the f...cking term.

You don't have a clue... We have to take shit from whites folks EVERY SINGLE DAY even though we contributed so much to this country.

Where are the companies giving blacks preferential treatment? WHERE?

I worked hard for both of my degrees ( physics and math) and have to hear this crap all the time from people like you.

BTW, the words are "affirmative" and "towards".
The spelling and grammar in this country is atrocious.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I cant count the number of times I have said hi, or tried to be friendly with someone who is black, only to be snubbed because they dont want to talk to that racist cracker.. They can use any derogitory term they wish on a white person, but the second a white person calls a black person something its a hate crime, and they find themselves being sued or something. Its a huge double standard.. Because those poor black folks cant possibly be racist.. they are too oppressed.. give me a break..

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 05:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Im sure you did work hard for your degree.. But you got much better financial aid, and scholerships than any white person, just because your black. Try working 30 hours a week, and go to school full time.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Im sure you did work hard for your degree.. But you got much better financial aid, and scholerships than any white person, just because your black. Try working 30 hours a week, and go to school full time.

The only scholarship i got was $500 from a BLACK organization. Financial aid was TAP and PELL. I got petty jobs.

Ramen noodles and campbell soup were my staples and I still kept up.

All of this was ok. The toughest thing to do is fight the perception that I (and others like myself) got a free ride that whites and others like you have.

But too many of you think that way, so I guess we'll just have to press on.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: THE AMERICAN DREAM (Way OT)
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/29/fedex.suit.ap/index.html
FedEx Sued for not Lowering Testing Standards for Minorities

Well just reading some other news today and I found this article, an example of big corporations being forced to cater to minorities. I haven't read the entire article, and there's probably something like "the test is slanted towards whites" going on. However, wouldn't they just want the test to be changed completely instead of just letting lower scores pass?

Anyway, this is reverse racism, and it happens _a lot_

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by Innova on Sat 1st Oct 2005 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
Innova Member since:
2005-09-30

[quote]
Im sure you did work hard for your degree.. But you got much better financial aid, and scholerships than any white person, just because your black. Try working 30 hours a week, and go to school full time.
[/quote]

Actually, the trick to winning a scholership is not to be black, but to learn how to spell scholarship correctly. Work an extra 5 hours next week and buy a dictionary.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: THE AMERICAN DREAM (OT)
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

As a white I don't consider myself racist. Now, everyone has a little racism in them - well prejudice, that is learned behavior from birth. Say I'm working the counter at a gas station at 1am and 3 16-20 y/o black kids come in, I might feel a little edgy. Of course, same scenario 3 white kids come in, I'm also probably edgy. Depends on if they're wearing do-rags(sp?) baggy clothes etc, attitude, and if they pronounce "that" "dat"

Anyhow I don't know about corporations giving blacks preferential treatment, but definitely I feel the effects of reverse racism (funny term there) a lot of places I go. But I guess I don't have to put up with it every day. Tough subject anyhow.

Reply Score: 0

RE: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by hollovoid on Fri 30th Sep 2005 15:37 UTC in reply to "THE AMERICAN DREAM"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

its funny you make assumptions instead of stating facts about another country. people hate the US because of our rapid development in comparison, and th main reason,,,,

BECAUSE ITS NOT THIER COUNTRY.

we are not superior, human beings are human beings, there is not a better "breed" based on thier nationality.

black people are far from 5th class citizens now, if you would get out of the 1950's, that would be great

trampling human rights,, dont mean to be rude, but out of most of the EU countries/asia/africa, we are about the least of the offenders in this, and we have aided many times to stop all out GENOCIDE in many of these countries, and if ya wanna bring up WW2,,, just be glad your all; not speaking german right now.

its true the internet should be opened up to a more general world ownership, but this cannot happen overnight, and needs patience to work out,,

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
Anonymous Member since:
---
v RE[3]: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
RE[2]: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by jonas.kirilla on Fri 30th Sep 2005 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
jonas.kirilla Member since:
2005-07-11

"and if ya wanna bring up WW2,,, just be glad
your all; not speaking german right now"

I'm Scandinavian, FWIW, and I like German. (And it's got nothing to do with blue eyes and blond hair.) I wish American film makers (and some European) would stop using the cliche of the German accent bad guys. That is pathetic. You need to let go of the world wars and move on.

And while we're at it.. The cliche of tall, blond Swedes.. Yeah, we've got penguins, polar bears and vikings running all over the place, too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And while we're at it.. The cliche of tall, blond Swedes.. Yeah, we've got penguins, polar bears and vikings running all over the place, too.

That's pretty much what certain people believe about Denmark.

But it's better than those who believe Denmark is the capital of Sweden. We still haven't forgotten about Skåneland ;)

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by japail on Sat 1st Oct 2005 08:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: THE AMERICAN DREAM"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Where are ze missilez? We have vays of making you talk.

Reply Score: 1

RE: THE AMERICAN DREAM
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:14 UTC in reply to "THE AMERICAN DREAM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, because wide spread inner-city poverty has nothing to do with government schools which are incapable of providing an adequate education to children and affirmative action policies that shuffle these kids into colleges they are academically unprepared for. Nor does it have anything to do with socialist welfare programs that reward irresponisible behavior and contribute to entire generations of people being dependent on government handouts.

Sadly, it's because of these government indoctination centers we call "public schools", that these insane and detrimental programs and attitudes continue to grow and flourish. Even in a land that has a constitution which was written to prevent most of this nonsense.

Reply Score: 0

Here's the problem
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 15:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Despite "everyone hating america", the internet runs fine, day in and day out. Free speech flows and all views are tolerated. Now China, who does not hide their distaste for free speech or freedom in general, wants to have a hand in controlling the internet. And Cuba? has anyone here been to Cuba? And lets not even get started on Iran. And why are third world countries worried about the internet? Here's an idea, get some food and healthcare for your people before worrying about the internet. Its all about shaking down America to these countries. Everyone wants to get a hand it the pocket. Let China build out their own internet. Let the EU build out their own internet. The same with Iran and Africa for that matter. What it comes down to is that all these countries NEED, not want, to do business with the US. And companies in those countries will demand access to the "US" internet.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Here's the problem
by hollovoid on Fri 30th Sep 2005 16:14 UTC in reply to "Here's the problem"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

right on, right on.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Here's the problem
by Bil. on Fri 30th Sep 2005 16:53 UTC in reply to "Here's the problem"
Bil. Member since:
2005-07-20

Let the EU build out their own internet. What it comes down to is that all these countries NEED, not want, to do business with the US. And companies in those countries will demand access to the "US" internet.

And US companies NEED to do business with the rest of the world and would demand access to the EU/world internet. The internet is bigger then the sum of its parts, so why is it controlled by (and so subject to the whims and politics of) one country? Better the US controls it then China, Iran, or [insert repressive dictatorship of choice], but better still that its controlled by someone without a political agenda.

Of course the EU or UN aren't ideal candidates either for the same reason.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Here's the problem
by japail on Sat 1st Oct 2005 08:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Here's the problem"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Everyone has a political agenda. This is all just nationalistic chest-pounding.

Reply Score: 1

Hot Air
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 15:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

There is more hot air being placed on this thread than any I have seen in a while. I wonder how many people here actually understand the issues at stake rather than just spout off "everybody hates the US", "Everybody is a bunch of Commies", "we invented the Internet", yadda, yadda, yadda.

How about some reasoned discussion based on FACTS.

Do I think US Government control of the Internet is a good idea? Not particularly (I am American). But then again, do I think ANY government having control is a good idea? Interesting question, no? I will admit that I don't know what the correct solution is. I would have to do a lot more research personnally to resolve this for myself. But I do think a change is coming as the pressure is too great for things to remain as they are.

Just my $0.02.

Reply Score: 2

v How about the IETF and IEEE????
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 16:15 UTC
CERN
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

thats all very well, but you are posting on a European created WWW.

Please vacate

:-)

Reply Score: 0

v RE[4]: Very good
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:23 UTC
v RE[5]: Very good
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Very good"
The solution is simple
by test on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:28 UTC
test
Member since:
2005-07-06

The US has the right to control the .us domain, just like the Brits can administer the .uk domain and the Chinese the .cn domain. But when it comes to international domains such as .com, .org, .net, .edu and .gov, these should be administered by international organisations, such as the ISO or the ITU. Doesn't this makes sense?

Reply Score: 1

v Europe can not be trusted
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:31 UTC
RE: Europe can not be trusted
by anda_skoa on Fri 30th Sep 2005 18:05 UTC in reply to "Europe can not be trusted"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Europe gave us two world wars

Actually that was Austria. Both times.

Our next candidate is our second leader export, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Beware of the Austrians, they are evil

Reply Score: 3

RE: Europe can not be trusted
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 19:01 UTC in reply to "Europe can not be trusted"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ok that's 2 wars in which you came late and stole the victory.. cool. Now let's count the number of wars you made SINCE WW2? Let's count the number of murders you commited in the name of you bullshit.

I call USofA the biggest genocide maker in the World. You shoul've been sanctioned to hell long ago.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Europe can not be trusted
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Europe can not be trusted"
Anonymous Member since:
---

“Ok that's 2 wars in which you came late and stole the victory... cool.”

Ill gives you that on 1. It was more disease than anything else that ended that war and no one in the states really proclaims that we bailed Europe out in 1 they just kind of say we helped and won because we (the UK, and the winning team) got the better end of the negotiating stick.

Now on 2 you’ve slipped off the deep end. Put down the bottle and step away from the crack pipe. America bailed Europe out of a deep dark hole when we entered 2. France was lost by practically day one. Eastern Europe was in shambles, the commies where just being used as target practice and bombs where raining down in the streets of London. The war was all but lost it was merely 1 gritty drunk old man that kept England from bowing down. In the history books America gives credit to the allies but I think that everyone knows who did the winning in that one.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Europe can not be trusted
by somebody on Fri 30th Sep 2005 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Europe can not be trusted"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Now on 2 you’ve slipped off the deep end. Put down the bottle and step away from the crack pipe. America bailed Europe out of a deep dark hole when we entered 2. France was lost by practically day one. Eastern Europe was in shambles, the commies where just being used as target practice and bombs where raining down in the streets of London. The war was all but lost it was merely 1 gritty drunk old man that kept England from bowing down. In the history books America gives credit to the allies but I think that everyone knows who did the winning in that one.

Now, not to be saying Americans didn't helped out in WW2, but... everyone knows who did the winning in that one

All coutries were lost on day 1 when Germany attacked them. That's a known fact. And what was until year 43 when Americans entred the war? Oh, yeah both sides had a picnic and waited for Americans. The only thing where Americans REALLY bailed out Europe was by supplying them with ammunition and equipment (which US took for granted in the years till now). And the main reason why Hitler lost would be that he was fighting on to many fronts at once, not that Americans were winning.

Her is a litlle summary for you (pasted from a site about WWII):
German forces in Italy surrendered effective May 2 and those in the Netherlands, northwestern Germany, and Denmark on May 4. Patrols of the U.S. Seventh Army driving eastward through Austria and the Fifth Army driving north from Italy met near the Brenner Pass. On 7 May the German High Command surrendered all its forces unconditionally, and 8 May was officially proclaimed V-E Day. Though peace had come to Europe, one of the most culturally and economically advanced areas of the globe lay in ruins. Germany, the industrial engine of the Continent, lay prostrate, occupied by British, French, American, and Soviet troops. Britain, exhausted by its contribution to the victory, tottered near economic collapse, while France was totally dependent on the United States. The Soviet Union had suffered in excess of 20 million casualties and untold devastation, but its armed forces remained powerful and its intentions obscure. To the victory in western Europe and Italy, the United States had contributed 68 divisions, 15,000 combat aircraft, well over 1 million tanks and motor vehicles, and 135,000 dead.

As you see a lot of equipment. More tanks than men actualy participating.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Europe can not be trusted
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Europe can not be trusted"
Anonymous Member since:
---

That's a known fact. And what was until year 43 when Americans entred the war?

USA entered the war in december 1941. Against Japan as well as Germany.

And it was decisive for the outcome of the war. I'll grant USA that one.

I consider USA a close ally in health and in sickness. That's why I think we could handle ownership of the internet together.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I think you underestimate the contribution of the USSR to the defeat of the Axis. If it hadn't been for the Stalingrad "quagmire", things might have gove quite differently.

Was it not for the sacrifice of millions of "communists", we might all be speaking German today. Think about it...

Also, don't forget the work done by the French resistance. Sure, the American were instrumental in winning as well, but despite your narrow patriotic view of the conflict, it really was an allied victory, not an American one.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Europe can not be trusted
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Europe can not be trusted"
RE[5]: Europe can not be trusted
by piriu on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Europe can not be trusted"
piriu Member since:
2005-09-23

Talking russian? You have no ideea about living in communism.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Europe can not be trusted
by japail on Sat 1st Oct 2005 08:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Europe can not be trusted"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

But everyone speaking German, taken literally, made perfect sense to you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Europe can not be trusted
by japail on Sat 1st Oct 2005 08:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Europe can not be trusted"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

The U.S. has a lot of killing to do before it can compete with the two world wars in terms of casualties.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Europe can not be trusted
by somebody on Fri 30th Sep 2005 19:09 UTC in reply to "Europe can not be trusted"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Europe gave us two world wars, fascism, and communism just in the past century.

Yeah, and by the way Europeans were the ones that came across the ocean to populate America (no, I don't agree with the way how land was taken from the natives). Before independance America was part of British Empire. And you fought for independance, why?

So, by denying democratic Internet and changes, you also say that America righteously belonks to UK because you invalidate possible changes. It started as such.

I can't really understand how can you differentiate history based on the location where people live.

And just a few years ago they sat around while genocide was being committed in Yugoslavia.

And you would know that how? CNN told you? Some of us live a bit closer and actualy saw the events from the first hand.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Uh..as a soldier who spent a year in Yugoslavia if you ask the Albanian population in Kosovo yes the UN did sit around and yes the US did step up and protect them from genocide.

Most of the Serbians hated us though. I can say I never saw anyone (soldiers) be anything but absolutely polite to them... but there is a lot of Albanian/Serbian racism, obviously, and the Serbs are in the minority.

Bottom line, UN did nothing, Clinton kicked ass, genocide stopped.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

yes serbian are devils ,
so after "liberation" of Kosovo, please
guess from which country most of drugs come
to europe? Albania/Kosovo. And who burned
orthodoxe churches ? who killed civilians serbs,
who provoked war - of course evil serbians.
And Clinton got Nobel award for peace ;)
I think USA and world completely lost their mind,
they came to country destroyed it threw bombs
on the hospitals and schools, very brave american
soldiers, bravo.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Well, you are mixing things together.

Clinton had very little to do with intervening in Bosnia where the genocide happened.

In Kosovo there has been no genocide so far, except from the albanian attacks on serbs.

It's been too many times that NATO troops have been passive during albanian attacks on serbs, while NATO had no trouble shooting unarmed serbs.

However, this changed last year, after heavy political pressure from european right wing and Russia.

Now NATO is behaving more properly in Kosovo, which also means NATO becomes a target for then albanian moslem terrorists.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE: Europe can not be trusted
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:16 UTC in reply to "Europe can not be trusted"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And just a few years ago they sat around while genocide was being committed in Yugoslavia.

That's not entirely true. UN sat by and did nothing effectively to prevent genocide. But the danish troops in Yugoslavia were the first international troops to open fire and it was against serbian irregulars.
USA came in later, and it was NATO (with a minor amount of US airforce) that gave the serbs the big push.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Europe can not be trusted
by piriu on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Europe can not be trusted"
piriu Member since:
2005-09-23

Genocide? Good, old US propaganda.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

I know I'm feeding a troll here, but you're an absolute idiot.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[6]: Very good
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:37 UTC
RE[6]: Very good
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You also forgot

f--k the world and f--k anything beyond your selfish self

And you wonder why US folks are despised with attitudes like this

Reply Score: 0

pay up
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

We made the net we own it,,,,,period! Other countries can just rent space from the U.S, it's called making money.....so pay up! or pay back all the loans and billions we've given to you.

By the way, what other country gave us billions for hurricane relief?

Reply Score: 0

RE: pay up
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:44 UTC in reply to "pay up"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I take it you've being paying attention?

There is many threads on here that disprove you made the net

On loans? hmmm maybe you should start paying back the trillions you own china before sprouting off

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: pay up
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE: pay up"
Anonymous Member since:
---

There are also many places on the internet that prove that someone has designed a perpetual motion machine. That doesn't mean it's true.

Maybe we should have just kept ARPANet to ourselves and let our military use it. It would be interesting to see how close you could have come to the internet of today, on todays date, without it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: pay up
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: pay up"
Anonymous Member since:
---

There are also many places on the internet that prove that someone has designed a perpetual motion machine. That doesn't mean it's true.

Maybe we should have just kept ARPANet to ourselves and let our military use it. It would be interesting to see how close you could have come to the internet of today, on todays date, without it.
---------------------------------------------------------

sigh.....

It'd be the same as it is now, seeing how Europe helped you with it

It might come to a bit of a shock to you, but pssst the rest of the world does invent things aswell

You that American Nuclear bomb you dropped on Japan, hate to break it to you, but the team that invented was made of numerous nationalities, including British & Polish.

You know Radar? well the Brits actually gave you that one seeing that you never had it, no, no its Okay don't thank us.

You all the engineers, scientist biologists working in the US, inventing wonderful things, well, hmm again hate to break it to you, but a lot of them are actually Johnny foreigners

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: pay up
by bsdero on Fri 30th Sep 2005 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: pay up"
bsdero Member since:
2005-08-29

yes, and a Mexican invented the early color television transmission system. ;)

Reply Score: 1

v RE[7]: Very good
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:48 UTC
Some terms and history
by mdoverkil on Fri 30th Sep 2005 17:55 UTC
mdoverkil
Member since:
2005-09-30

Some posters are confusing some terms and history, thought I would help clear some things up. Sorry this is slightly off-topic and bit long

All this info is taken from Computer Networks 4th Edition by Andrew S. Tanenbaum

(most of it is summarized)

Computer networks - a collection of autonomous computers interconnected by a single technology

internet - a collection of interconnected networks

Internet - "The Internet is not a network at all but a vast collection of different networks that use certain common protocols and provide certain common services. It is an unusual system in that it was not planned by anyone or controlled by anyone"

ARPANET:
In the late 1950s the US DoD wanted a command-and-control network that could survive a nuclear war. Therefore ARPA was formed (Advanced Research Projects Agency). Until 1967 ARPA did nothing, and when they finally did decide to do something. It was recommended by Wesley Clark to build a packet-switched subnet, giving each host its own router.

In late 1967 Donald Davies of the National Physics Laboratory in England demonstrated that packet-switching could work(it just connected several computers on campus).

With packet-switching proven to work ARPA set out to build its packet-switched subnet. In December 1969 an experimental network consisting of UCLA,UCSB,SRI, and the University of UTAH went on air. aka ARPANET

In 3 years ARPANET went from 4 campuses to over 30
(all had ARPA contracts)

In the 1970s NSF funded some 20 regional networks that connected to the backbone to allow users at universities, research labs,libraries, and museums to access the NSF six supercomputer centers. The complete NSF network (NSFNET) was connected to ARPANET via an IMP and a fuzzball in the Carnegie-Mellon machine room

In 1990 ANS(a non-profit corporation including MERIT,MCI,and IBM) took over NSFNET and upgraded it to ANSNET, which operated by 5 years then was sold to AOL.

And eventually everything was handed over the the industry, the single default backbone was replaced with a commercially-driven competitive infrastructure.

also during this time EuropaNET and EBONE went online in Europe and were also handed over to the industry.

WWW: First of all the World Wide Web is an APPLICATION. It was invented by CERN physicist Tim Berners-Lee. It did not change any of the underlying facilities just made them easy to use.

once again sorry for the long-post

Reply Score: 3

2 World Wars
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 18:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The only reason America (or the USSR) didn't start WW3 was because we knew we couldn't win (mutually assured destruction). If the Cold War had started 20 years earlier it would have gone just like WW2.

I start to get worried when socialists, communists, islamo-fascists and other assorted f--kups start liking us.

Unfortunately, you just named the entire world... Pretty much every believer in democracy (outside the USA) is actually a believer in socialism. And the rest are facists.

Reply Score: 0

RE: 2 World Wars
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:25 UTC in reply to "2 World Wars"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Pretty much every believer in democracy (outside the USA) is actually a believer in socialism. And the rest are facists.

That's a lot of bullshit! I'm truly hoping you're being ironic here. If not I have to say that you are very wrong.

Socialism !compatible-with-democracy
Fascism == Socialism

Believers in democracy are believers in each individual's right to govern his own life as much as possible without interference from authorities.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

Ohhh the flames...
by cibus on Fri 30th Sep 2005 18:49 UTC
cibus
Member since:
2005-07-06

I am from(and living in) Norway and I think it is sad to see the hatred towards the US, that has been building up over here the past years.
An example: Pepole are using Katrina/NewOrleans as an example that the US is "rotten on the inside" etc. It's just so lame, and the media is adding wood to the fire. Yeah - like it would have looked any better in any given European country!?
The US is responsible for tons of crap, but a lot of the comments you see here(and much more on the political foras) is made by people who see the US as the ultimate evil empire. I'm just so damned tired of the general attitude amonst a lot of those who speak the loudest. Yes - the press loves blowing everyting that makes the US look bad out of proportions, but please try to look trough that!
And regarding the Kyoto treaty that is so often. How many of those using that argument knows about the little details regarding coutrys abillity to sell their quotas in that treaty?
I don't love the US, I'd much rather live here in Norway, but I'm not blinded by the trendy US hatred.

Face the facts: The internet(IP/TCP/UDP based networks) started out in the US. It would be a good thing if DNS control was handed over to an international commitee, but we are not in the position to demand it. I guess control of the the GPS sattelites should also be handed over to such an institution?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ohhh the flames...
by hollovoid on Fri 30th Sep 2005 20:30 UTC in reply to "Ohhh the flames..."
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

being originally from germany, and now a citizen of the us for many years i agree, many people just plain hate the us, for every flaw, and every bad decision we have ever made... forgetting, that we are all human, but are willing to "shrug off" enourmous crimes against humanity caused by thier own. I personally love living here, and see no limitation caused by the us "owning" the internet since ive been here or when i lived in germany. we offer the most general openness of free speech than in almost any other country out there. yes we are a little pushy on religeon and comments about the president, but,, how many millions have died here because of war over it? not applicible. and how many countries other than ours have laws to pretect malicious activity on the internet, that is as comprehensive as ours? exactly.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Europe can not be trusted
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 19:33 UTC
RE[4]: Europe can not be trusted
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 19:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Europe can not be trusted"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Last I heard, it was conservatives who most want to censor the internet, not socialists. Communists want to ban free speech, and conservatives want to ban all dissing of the President, flag, country, etc. And porn, talk of being gay, and any talk that God might not exist. Traditionally, liberals are about the only ones who DON'T censor stuff, although you're right that recently that hasn't been the case either.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Europe can not be trusted
by japail on Sat 1st Oct 2005 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Europe can not be trusted"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

The desire for censorship transcends other economic or social philosophies. The desire to ban or regulate violent entertainment? Bipartisan. The desire to ban or regulate hate speech? Bipartisan.

There are just those people that believe it's the government's role to regulate the communication of ideas. From nipples on network television to Nazi flags. From using words like ***** or cracker to playing Doom.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Europe can not be trusted
by japail on Sat 1st Oct 2005 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Europe can not be trusted"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Case in point, my purely-illustrative use of a racial epithet was replaced by asterisks.

Testing:
cracker
gook
chink
beaner
wetback
nip
mick

I don't actually know all that many racial slurs but I think we all get the point.

Reply Score: 1

jonas.kirilla Member since:
2005-07-11

"France, Germany and others don't have free speech embedded in their constitution."

I doubt that this is the case. In Sweden we do have free speech in our "grundlag", but if you think spreading hateful propaganda should be legal you're probably better off with US legislation.

"This is just a feeble power grab by a bunch of fascist socialists that want to dictate what can and
can't be on the internet."

First off, fascists and socialists are usally at opposite ends of the common political spectrum. And for the most part us Europeans are neither fascists nor socialists ("communists"). We're mostly centrist, liberal, socialdemocrats, if that means anything to you.

There's no European agenda to tax or censor the Internet. That's just absurd.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Europe can not be trusted
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 19:53 UTC
jonas.kirilla Member since:
2005-07-11

"Like you can't deny the holocaust. That's fascism."

You know Nazism is a form of Fascism, so the holocaust is a product of fascism. Denying it ever happened, is probably done in defense of fascism, rather than out of a passion for historical correctness.

Reply Score: 1

v ha
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 19:58 UTC
France
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 20:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Europe gave us two world wars"

Yeah and France gave us The Vietnam War........thanks France!

P.S. Europe, you mean Germany, and Japan gave us 2 wars.

Reply Score: 0

america cant win..
by hollovoid on Fri 30th Sep 2005 20:49 UTC
hollovoid
Member since:
2005-09-21

seems to be a trend, we help out, people tell us to mind our own buisness, we dont help out, people scream about how wealthy we are and how we should help. we own something, it should be given to someone else.. solution? dont help anybody, work on paying our own debt off, and let everybody fend for themselfs,,, see what kind of conditiom the world is in 10-20 years.

Reply Score: 1

RE: america cant win..
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 12:25 UTC in reply to "america cant win.."
Anonymous Member since:
---

seems to be a trend, we help out, people tell us to mind our own buisness, we dont help out, people scream about how wealthy we are and how we should help. we own something, it should be given to someone else.. solution? dont help anybody, work on paying our own debt off, and let everybody fend for themselfs,,, see what kind of conditiom the world is in 10-20 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------

I almost really wish this is what we'd actually do.

Reply Score: 0

China? Cuba? Iran?
by Ressev on Fri 30th Sep 2005 21:37 UTC
Ressev
Member since:
2005-07-18

And they insist control be democratic? What does this sound like? Oh yeah, we already have a very "functional" democratic body called the United Nations.

I Think Not.

Last we need are Geo-political sheenanigans with Domain Names. "Sorry, you can't use that name for your address because you critise XYorZ." No thanks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Very good
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 22:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Not one US senator voted for Kyoto - not even the hardcore leftists. Why? Because they know the impact it'll have on the standard of living. The econazis don't care about human standard of living, but the standard of living for a grasshopper that doesn't even know it exists.

Are you crazy? The high standard of living based on excessive and ineffective use of natural resources? Sure, for a few decades or a century or so. Then what? We *have* to develop cleaner industry *now* - we are already overdue.

Reply Score: 0

time for a change
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 22:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The US promotes democracy (or is it sometimes a smokescreen?) Well, the status quo is not particularly democratic, is it?

Then again, I haven't heard about a real issue here - aside from the occasional headline that address space is running out. The problem is probably more that the rest of the world does not want to have to ask the US for addresses. I understand - I wouldn't either.

Solution: go to IPv6 (Cisco will applaud that), that leaves plenty of address space for all and forever - and split the space among the countries of the world according to population size - once and for all. Concerning DNS, then all URLs should end in country code e.g. ch,ro,uk,us,za,...etc. Europe could use such occasion to introduce eu. Anyway, that way no country has to be governed by any other in this matter. I believe China has already started on the IPv6 path.

But if the US refuses to be democratic then another harsher solution is simply that other blocks of the world just start their own root files. If they then overlap those of others then someone will probably figure out how to invent and insert address translators in between the blocks. Money will drive it.

The US argument is that switching to a UN body will induce inefficient bureaucracy. Convenient fits-all-occasions argument? I mean - how much is there to do? We are talking about root files. But why don't we put it out for a vote in the UN and let each country decide if they want to stay with the status quo? That's democracy, right?

The NewYork Times today quotes the Bush regime for having said: the United States would "maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.". By what authority? That would have been fine if it was the outcome of a democratic process.
I wonder how much time the Bush regime and their speech writers spent on digging up that sentence. Who do they think they are? It's time for a change.

Besides, now that I'm at it - I can't wait for time up for the current US regime. Hopefully a person with a vision beyond the current one point agenda of keeping the fire lit under the threat of and fight against terrorism to warrant the job will be elected next time. A team player. Someone that abides as much by the rules of democracy as he/she promotes it. And not one that just goes to war anyway without proper authorization.

The article ends with
"...and it looks increasingly likely that ... the United States will be negotiated out of control of the internet". I hope so. A breath of fresh air.

Reply Score: 1

RE: time for a change
by japail on Sat 1st Oct 2005 08:48 UTC in reply to "time for a change"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Splitting the IP space by the population of countries doesn't make a lot of sense.

Reply Score: 1

Internet Control
by Hugo on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:05 UTC
Hugo
Member since:
2005-07-06

First of all I refuse to read all the crap that's being posted on this thread.
The USA should not have control of the internet.
However countries like Cuba, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia should not control even a single bit of internet traffic, they don't deserve it, the internet is about free speech, and freedom should be protected at all cost, I will not have some shity theocracy or blood thirsty dictatorship controlling information on the internet.
And that's my opinion.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Internet Control
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 12:35 UTC in reply to "Internet Control"
Anonymous Member since:
---

That's actually a pretty good post. Kind of sums up my feelings.

Reply Score: 0

Stop using fossil fuels
by joelito_pr on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:22 UTC
joelito_pr
Member since:
2005-07-07

And use cheap nuclear power instead.

Of course we would still have those, tofu eating tree hugging greenpeace hippies, telling us that Nuclear energy is Bad and should be banned.

To support my claim my suggestion is simple. Instead of trying to build massive plants, we build smaller plants that could use a technology more like the one use in US Navy nuclear submarines. These tend to be more self contained and (AFAIK) a single reactor produces as much energy(If not more) as a fossil fuel burning plant. Plus, because electricity cost are much less, these could be a starting point to produce other alternative fuels like Biodiesels and Hydrogen (Both wich require electricity to be produced)

Reply Score: 1

kyoto
by Anonymous on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Not one US senator voted for Kyoto"

The countries that signed this should follow it. The United States is more green now that it has been in a 100 years. China is the worst pollutor on the planet. They should follow Kyoto.

The U.S, specially California has the strictest laws around for cars and immission standards. The U.S is much higher than E.U too.

Why do you think industries in the U.S can't compete with overseas labor? It's because there are few EPA standards. Look at the gross polution in China.......they need to be held accountable to your Kyoto standards.

Reply Score: 1

RE: kyoto
by piriu on Fri 30th Sep 2005 23:35 UTC in reply to "kyoto"
piriu Member since:
2005-09-23

I don't know about other aspects, but US made cars are not eco-friendly.

Reply Score: 1

Thom Holwerda
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 00:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Look at what you did. You guys are worse then the idiots on slashdot and all the site operators just contribute to it. There is no freedom of anykind in this. It's a bunch of morons bickering back and forth.

Reply Score: 0

totally wrong
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 00:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Believers in democracy are believers in each individual's right to govern his own life as much as possible without interference from authorities"

that is ANARCHY

democracy is to be fairly represented by the authority.

Reply Score: 0

You are all really quite amusing
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 00:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I've not read such an amusing thread for some time. I've forgotten how funny vitriolic nonsense can be. ;)

Most of you should catch up on a little critical thinking and the notion of logical fallacies.

You've arguing over control over DNS as proposed by a delegation headed by the U.K. A proposal to which the U.S. is opposed. That is it. The fact that the U.K. seems to have been spared the ire of posters is also intriguing.

It doesn't matter who won the war, how the war was won. It doesn't matter whether the universe is littered with lesbian pinko leftists bent on creating a communal nirvana of subservient plebs, whether it is strewn with obnoxious people with a penchant for dictatorships, or whether American democracy represents the "End of History". It doesn't make an iota of difference if a hurricane was caused by the actions of exhaust pipe of a Hummer or the flapping wings of pesky butterfly. Because your 8000 chracters will never give you sufficient space to provide a thoughtful argument.

So whilst zealously posting your unverified speculation and partisan conjecture might give you that warm fuzzy feeling inside, it does little to build knowledge and draw to one of the many logical conclusions.

Think about it and keep on postin' - I'm loving it.

Cheers.

Now got to go and label someone a Communist.....

Reply Score: 0

?
by re_re on Sat 1st Oct 2005 00:53 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

Was there a topic here or did I just miss it?

Reply Score: 1

abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

My opinion on this is that the UN has no right to take control of the internet and it has no reason to either. First of all the internet was invented in the US. The US should be allowed to retain control as long as it wants. On top of that the US hasn't really regulated the interenet much. It is probably the most democratic entity in existance. Secondly, repressive regimes have s say in the UN and that can only reduce democracy on the internet. The last reason it is a bad idea is that even if there was good reason to hand over conrtol to an international entity, the best thing to do would be to create an entirely new entity that conrtolled the internet and the internet only. Seperation of powers is a GOOD thing.

Reply Score: 1

Anti-US nonsense
by JaredWhite on Sat 1st Oct 2005 01:29 UTC
JaredWhite
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have an extremely simple point to make: the Internet works amazingly well, is amazingly open (in countries that allow it to be open *cough*China*cough*), and has transformed the lives of billions of people across the globe.

This all happened with it under the oversight of the US. I see no, I mean NO reason whatsoever to allow any world body to take it over. After comparing the track records of the US vs. the UN and other world bodies in just about every field, the choice is obvious.

Jared

Reply Score: 1

yea let the UN get it
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 01:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why I am for US control is one thing, Free speech

The French Sued Yahoo over racist websites
The Germans sued Ebay over WWII memorabilia.
The Chinese, North Koreans and even South Koreans block some sites.

Hey, the Americans may not be the best, but look at the other choices. I don't see Big american filters, except on cigarettes.

Reply Score: 0

v Bye bye!
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 04:27 UTC
invented ?
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 04:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"ETHERNET is a US creation. ARCNET is a US creation"

where was invented the telephone ?
Do you think that the country where was invented the telephone must rules the phone network and numbers attribution for every others country ?

as long as the US's corporate-democracy do not interfer with the fredom on internet, we do not have to change anything but i 'm not really confident for the future.

i'm much more credit to EU organisation to take care of the individual interest and freedom (see GM food, IP, privacy protection etc..).

US a rooted by corporate influences.

Reply Score: 0

Stop with the mindless america bashing
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 05:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Yeah, USA is the only pure evil country in the world.
For example, Britan doesnt exactly have a perfect history either. As a matter of fact didnt they spend most of 1300's to 1800's taking land from several people's around the world and calling them colonies of britan, and the same type of thing for other european countries such as spain, and portugal? Im so sick of this mindless america bashing crap, no-one outside america is any more or any less educated on the workings of the world than american citizens. And as for everyon in america being stuck up: There are stupid rich pricks that everyone hates in EVERY country.. There are complete un-educated morons in EVERY country. There extremly inteligent people in EVERY country. There are control freaks in the government of EVERY country, they wouldnt be in any government position in the first place in any country if they didnt want power. EVERYONE needs to grow the f*** up, mind their own business, leave other people alone if you have nothing positive to do or say, and the world could be a much better place.

Reply Score: 0

not broke
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 05:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It's not broke, so don't "fix" it.

Don't let your hatred/jealousy of the U.S. ruin a good thing.

What would you rather have, the internet controlled by a stable, free, fair economic superpower... or by a bunch of squabbling, scheming, jealous heads-of-state?

By Communists and religous fanatics? Or countries whose governments change every f--king week?

You think you'll be able to get access to your Sylvia Saint porn if China and Iran have a f--king say?

China? Iran? Even the most vehement anti-U.S. jackoff can see that it has to be a bad idea if those countries are supporting it.

Let's let North Korea have a say while we're at it.

f--k you. The internet is fine the way it is now.

You change how things go--just for the sake of changing it apparently... just because you hate the U.S., apparently--and you'll have to deal with the consequences.

I guess the upside of that is that you finally won't be able to blame the U.S. for something. There will be nobody to blame but yourself.

Reply Score: 0

is happening rigtht now
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 07:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root

Open Root Server Network (ORSN) is a network of root nameservers for the Internet, operating since February 2002. Its root zone information is normally kept in synchronization with that of the network coordinated by ICANN. The networks are thus compatible, although ORSN are operated independently from ICANN. The ORSN servers are primarily placed in Europe.

The founders of ORSN are concerned that ICANN is ultimately controlled by the government of the United States. Their aim is to limit the control over the Internet that this gives, while ensuring that domain names remain unambiguous. They also expect their network to make name resolutions faster for everyone.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

The US should be ashamed of calling itself a democracy. There is nothing democratic about a regime that installs its 'president' in shabby false elections, has no independent media to speak of, has only a one party system of government (republican/democrat), has massive corporate control of government (Mussolini equated corporate power and control to fascism), tortures people, violates their rights and strips their civil liberties, and bombs or attacks countries that will not be slaves to US interests.
Of course we should not allow such a regime to control a system on which other countries depend, particularly given the past record of the US in blackmailing countries to do their bidding.

Reply Score: 2

History
by IceCubed on Sat 1st Oct 2005 11:41 UTC
IceCubed
Member since:
2005-07-01

I won't talk about history. I'd sugest that you ppl should go and buy some history books...

IMHO - todays USA is just like USSR in the 60-70'ties.

USSR leaders saw the world thru a `prism` of Stalinism-Leninism ( not exactly communism ).

Now the USA sees the world thru a `prism` of "every one is an enemy".

IMO USA should be told that the Cold War is over... till they get it.

And BTW before saying that fascism == communism, read something about true communism (and not Stalinism-Leninism).

PS: oh yeah, ant the WW II would have been won without USA a year later.

Reply Score: 1

RE: History
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 12:21 UTC in reply to "History"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Without US supplies, Britain would have fallen in 1940-1941. ITS A FACT, forget the massive amount of troops poured into Europe, just the supplies alone propped up the UK.


I'd like to understand just how the rest of the world was going to sink the Japanese Navy with no navy worth a damn of their own? It's hard to fuel your battleships when you have no oil, oil that the US shipped in droves to the UK at great cost.

PS NO ONE HAS PAID BACK THE UNITED STATES FOR ITS HELP IN WW1 or WW2, EXCEPT FOR FINNLAND from WW1. IT'S A FACT.

Iran, China & Cuba practice extreme censorship on their own government controlled internet access points. They limit religious freedom as well. They limit freedom of expression--JAILING THOSE WHO MAKE POSTS OR BLOGS that do not agree with their government's positions on economic policy or social policy IT'S A FACT--THIS IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. The government of China HAS REPEATEDLY BROKEN INTO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAIWAN'S COMPUTER SYSTEMS TO SPY AND STEAL INFORMATION--REPEATEDLY.


These are measures that those countries HAVE ALREADY TAKEN and you want to give them MORE POWER? What the hell for? To what benefit?

Brazil's grovernment is as stable as my stomach after eating Mexican food.

Can you think of an instance where your freedom was limited by ICANN? Can you think of an instance where you would personally benefit from a multi-government control system?

I would like to point to the continent of Africa and ask these proud nationalistic Euros WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING? LOOK WHAT YOU DID! Nice work on those governments and caste systems you installed.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: History
by segedunum on Sat 1st Oct 2005 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE: History"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

PS NO ONE HAS PAID BACK THE UNITED STATES FOR ITS HELP IN WW1 or WW2, EXCEPT FOR FINNLAND from WW1. IT'S A FACT.

Because the US didn't win WW2. If Britain hadn't stood firm in Europe when bastards like Joseph Kennedy (yes, JFK's very obnoxious dad) wanted to sell us down the river then with a large power base in Europe the Nazis would have certainly conquered the US with the Japanese from the other side. If our deterimination in winning the sea war in the Mediterranean and Atlantic hadn't materialised, and we hadn't gained a clear technical advantage over the Nazis from a losing position, and if we hadn't conveniently forgotten the attack on Pearl Harbour, which we knew about, you would never have got into the war and you could have waved bye, bye to apple pie and be eating sour kraut by now (or sushi). We led an intelligence war the silly Americans didn't even know existed.

Yes, Britain and other countries needed the US in the war because of the resources needed to fight, but this attitude that gung-ho America single-handedly won the war is just total bollocks. We won it together. Yes there was the Battle of Britain etc., but do we forget the Poles, Canadians, Australians and others who died unknown thousands of miles from home? No we don't. This self-righteous way in which a lot of Americans see themselves is going to come a cropper sooner rather than later.

The fact that we won wars all together, and we collaborate and do things together, means that we should have equal and fair transparency for the internet, since we all depend on it. If not, then I can see a situation where the US is cut off and the rest of the world creates its own internet. It really is not that difficult to do.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: History
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: History"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Wouldn't it be that the rest of the world would be cut off from the US?

OK now I'm just a troll ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: History
by junior on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 09:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: History"
junior Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, we'd miss ebay, but that's about it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: History
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: History"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Actualy NO SINGLE GODAMN NATION won the WW2. Not Americans(if you can call them a nation), not British and not Soviets (ehm you somehow forgot those even if they provided the "turn of tide" with millions of deaths (unlike someone who boasts here).

It was a teamwork albeit difficult one. All sides made stupid descisions. ALL sides betrayed Czechoslovakia and others which was the biggest mistake(you can't be sure but if they didn't WW2 would probably not happen)

Russians killed their own officers because of Stalin, not to mention a certain treaty with nazis. USofAs were arrogant wishing to not get involed/get as much out of WW2 as possible(which they were successful at eventualy). Brits "held" but they aren't exactly the winners ether. They held their ground and helped on many fronts but didn't turn the tide.

So who won the war? Noone. But nazis lost that's the point.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: History
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 07:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: History"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"ALL sides betrayed Czechoslovakia and others which was the biggest mistake"

France and Britain also betrayed Poland promising them help if the germans attacked but help never came in any form. In my opinion no single nation won the war or no single nation was the cause of the war. WW2 was just an aftermarch to WW1 and WW1 started because of many reasons, Austrias situation for example.

Funny, over 200 posts and most of them are offtopic, people bashing each other or people arguing about history, including me.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: History
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE: History"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Without US supplies, Britain would have fallen in 1940-1941. ITS A FACT, forget the massive amount of troops poured into Europe, just the supplies alone propped up the UK. "

Get your chronology right. By the time the US joined, the Battle of Britain had been won, so there was no danger of an invasion of the UK. Also, Germany was losing on the eastern front. To be sure, the US joining helped bring the 3rd Reich down, but it did not save the UK from invasion.

But, what has that got to do with it? If the US is relying on an event that ended 60 years ago for its authority, it's pretty sad. Since then, though, it's messed up so many countries which people so easily forget, with the CIA propping up corrept regimes or the country engaging in illegal wars to maintain its oil supplies.

Anon (UK)

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: History
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: History"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Get your chronology right. By the time the US joined, the Battle of Britain had been won, so there was no danger of an invasion of the UK. Also, Germany was losing on the eastern front. To be sure, the US joining helped bring the 3rd Reich down, but it did not save the UK from invasion.

Actually the Battle of Britain was one after american resources came to England. The engines in the british airplanes were american engines. Without the financial aid and the resources sent from USA to Great Britain, Nazi Germany would have had the victory. Nazi Germany was - at the time USA entered the war - actually winning on ALL battlefields, including the eastern front. The setbacks did not come until 1943.

And no, I'm not american. I'm danish. I just happen to know a lot about WW2 (sort of a hobby one might call it).

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: History
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: History"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"one" should "won"

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: History
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: History"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Hey dylansmrjones, you say you know a lot about WW2? LOL yeah right


The engines in the british airplanes were american engines, you say

Are you having laugh or are you deliberatly setting yourself up for ridicule?

:cough: I actually think you will find they were Rolls Royce engines!

well done moron

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: History
by dylansmrjones on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: History"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually they weren't Rolls Royce.

Rolls Royce got them from USA through the UK Government.

So... the engines in most Spitfires and Hurricanes were american engines, or based on american parts, since british industry couldn't produce fast enough.

It was our luck that Göring wanted the Luftwaffe to have the credit, and then changed tactics towards bombraids on cities. That saved UK in the Battle of Britain. UK would have lost if the Nazis had stuck to their first strategy.

Now go read some more "moron". And stop the name calling.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: History
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Oct 2005 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: History"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Actually they goddam where Rolls Royce engines, stop trying to revise bloody history

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: History
by dylansmrjones on Tue 4th Oct 2005 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: History"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I'n not revising the bloody history.

But apparently some englishmen don't like to admit they got a lot of help on all fronts from USA - including engines and parts to engines ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: History
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 12:53 UTC in reply to "History"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Not without supplies, retard

E:f,b

Reply Score: 0

Freedom
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 12:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Michael Moore made millions off Farhenheit 9/11. Not only could you not make an anti Gov't film in USSR in the 70's, you might not even get away with it now. All the protesting and Bush Bashing proves how free the US is.
The US doesn't condone torture. That's like saying all Muslims are for beheading Shiia's. Please compare the torture of Saddam to the US. The torture's are getting court marshalled and sent to Jail. Under Saddam they got promoted. We know of torture in Abu Gharaib because in 2003, they survived. Under Saddam, they got sent back to their families in body bags. There's no excuse for Detainee abuse under US control. But saying the US tortures everybody is like saying all Muslims are terrorists. Most of the victims of terrorism are Muslim.
You think the US didn't help in WWII? Hitler would have soon been defeated? Read up on D-Day. Read up on Japanese war crimes.
And about Corporation/Capitalism=fascism? Look how many execs are going to prison and for how long. Is it bad to have a lot of power in one corporation? Maybe, but there's so many companies that no single corporation has power over individual rights. Yes the DMCA sucks. But the same Music Artists who sue downloaders are also bashing Bush. Is being able to trash the President (Kanye West???) not evidence of freedom? Are their problems with voting in America? Yes, most of them stem from judicial activism. America isn't perfect. We're just not satan. Europe and America are allies. We better get used to it because somebody is trying to bomb our buses and trains, and we're not doing it to each other. We need to start working together better. Honestly, it doesn't matter who "runs" the internet to me. It will become more and more decentralized, yet still connected.

Reply Score: 0

RE:History
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 13:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Well a lot of well known ex western politicians suspect the USA goverment misused the tragedic events on 09-11-01
to strengthen their power politics in the world.I guess they are very reluctant to give up their internet government so easily.Kissinger once said: "if they don't give oil anymore we are going to get it" Their foreign politics have no reason or whatsoever.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]:History
by bsdero on Sat 1st Oct 2005 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE:History"
bsdero Member since:
2005-08-29

same that U.S. politics that Polk used in XIX century. But polk said "if they don't give land anymore we are going to get it".

Then they took more than a half of a country.

Sad.

Reply Score: 1

Al Ahzab
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 14:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

WORLD - USA = BETTER WORLD

(EU / US) + China = FUTURE

Reply Score: 0

bought
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 22:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"after american resources came to England"

bought and all the gold in UK'banks

UK/france lost all their gold to the US (and we had a lot), and US was richer after the war than before ;-)

Reply Score: 0

RE: bought
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 23:05 UTC in reply to "bought"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The US was richer?

Hey fool, we haven't recovered from WW1, infact I believe that we still havent recovered from the Spanish-American War of 1898.

And for the proud Brits who insist that their intelligence was some how going to win them the war, it was the fact that you're an island nation and Panzer III and IV Tauchfaig's couldn't make it across the English Channel.

The British barely took part at all in the Pacific Theather since they were over run so fast and had no supplies. You had no chance against the Japanese if America didn't sink their navy and shoot down most of their pilots with experience.


BUT GETTING BACK TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND, What is it that you CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE that giving ICANN's control to Iran, Cuba & China will get you?

Reply Score: 0

me european
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 00:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

me european. me never thought about who control internet or cared. internet worked fine. now me find out it USA controls internet. me angry. we want world to control internet instead, but not understand what "world" mean. me angry that US funded, built, and continues to fund and protect the internet. me rather have russia control it, or china, since china or russia more fair than evil USA.

bush bad!

Reply Score: 2

me another european
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 00:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

yes usa bad. me not liking the fact usa make internet. me rather have internet controlled by nation that keep starting world wars, for example. me want internet less secure and controlled so terrorist easily disrupt it.

all american things evil: google evil, microsoft evil, intel evil, apple evil, unix evil, ipod evil, bush evil.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

After reading all of these posts, a few things have come to my mind, being an American.

Europeans and other countries around the world bash Americans for many things...America does have a lot of problems, a lot of uneducated people and the like, but for the most part it is a very Inward looking country. Americans let the government meddle in foriegn affairs because they just have a ton of apathy about it. The average American does not know where most countries are around the globe, and many have no interest in leaving the US even for a vacation. What is interesting though is how interested Americans are when they actually meet a foriegner. Most Americans never leave the US.

It's too bad that Europeans especially are getting more and more hostle to the US. The average US citizen could give a rats ass about competing with Europe. Americans work ignorantly hard to keep up their lifestyles and improve/maintain their way of life. We could improve the life of Americans and Europeans (and others) by putting a lot of politics aside and working together like we used to. Both sides have a lot to contribute. It's the cheapening out of both the European and American economies with all of this cheap imported goods that raise competition between two excellent economies.

Lastly on the internet stuff, America developed and financed the internet. There were many people that contributed theories that were used to build Internet technologies but America built it. And we let everyone use it freely...look how great it has become. Just because many countries have latched onto it does not mean in my mind that we have to let go of our creation. I believe that if other countries consider it so strategic and don't trust the US to administer it anymore, why didn't they develop their own network and protocols?

Read the book "Where Wizards Stay Up Late" by Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon.

Just look at some comments from previous posts:

>>To the eyes of the 95% people on earth who are not US Americans, the current situation is absurd. Why should the net be ruled by an American organism ? A possible answer is "because the US was its main contributor until the late 90's" but this is not a good reason why the US should be granted that privilege forever.

>>The US "contributed" to the internet? The US created it for crying out loud

>>I honestly think the reason is stupid (pardon the bluntness). If it's working OK, leave it as it is. If not, change it. But simply to claim 1 country shouldn't have full control of it is, er, envy. The US built it, the US rule it. If the US come to misuse it, then think of changes.

>>I know of many issues with ICANN, and I know of various economic meddling regarding the internet. BUT, the stewardship of the Internet has been American.
The US is very extreme in its belief that all speech should be free. Even in the most liberal EU countries like Germany and France there are some political statements and political symbols that are banned. We're now one step closer to a censored internet.

>>The U.S.A. built the internet so we own it. Go get your own. Oh you say you helped. Thanks. If you don't like it then log off.

>>Face the facts: The internet(IP/TCP/UDP based networks) started out in the US

>>This all happened with it under the oversight of the US. I see no, I mean NO reason whatsoever to allow any world body to take it over.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

1/ if it is work dont fix it but who can ignore the growing influence and power of the corporates in US. it can be quickly scary and problematic. i'm much more willing to believe an EU organization when it's come to public interests.

2/ US invented it but dont own it, could you imagine the country that invented the telephone managing all network rules and numbers in every others countries ? be serious.

the network is mainly non-american nowdays.

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I believe that if other countries consider it so strategic and don't trust the US to administer it anymore, why didn't they develop their own network and protocols?

They did create their own networks. The internet came to existence by connecting the many international networks (Europe had their own). Why develope a new protocol when there already is one that works fine? USA invented the ARPAnet which was connected to the european network which was connected... and so on.

Lastly on the internet stuff, America developed and financed the internet.

And so did other countries as well. European countries did also develope the internet and they financed it as well. USA created the ARPAnet but not the internet.

There were many people that contributed theories that were used to build Internet technologies but America built it.

They built it together with somebody else (as you admit yourself). Ergo it's not solely an US creation. It's a world creation.

And we let everyone use it freely...

Well.. that's arrogant. We worked with you on the project as well. You did it together with us. So thank you very much for giving us access to our own work :p

look how great it has become.

Yeah, we did a good job together, didn't we?

Just because many countries have latched onto it does not mean in my mind that we have to let go of our creation.

WWW is an european invention running on top of the network, The internet is a world wide creation, and not just your creation. It's everybody's creation. So give the rest of us the access we deserve. You're holding our creation as a (political) hostage.

Reply Score: 1

same old history
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 05:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Yankees... They all think that all the world owes something to USA...

In a big part they are living from all world's money and work.

Reply Score: 0

a half way solution
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 13:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

To fan the flames control of the root dns entries should be given to the swiss since there the most democratic and neutral country in the world, and each country given control of its own country level dns.

Reply Score: 0

My first thought
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 15:34 UTC
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

While I don't advovcate the US government continuing to have control over parts of the internet's infrastructure, my first thought when seeing that list was:

"Hey, it's a who's-who list of the countries who typically have their entire IP netblocks blacklisted by mailserver admins to prevent spam."

Ask around the newsgroup news.admin.netabuse.email and you'll find a lot of admins who don't accept any mail from Chinese or Brazillian ISPs/mailservers. Perhaps these countries should focus on cleaning up their own internet backyards first.

Reply Score: 1

Back to the subject at hand...
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 13:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

What is it that ICANN is currently preventing you from doing, that you somehow feel giving control to China, Cuba & Iran will give you.

No one has answered this question yet. The ICANN organization has not limited your internet speech and not interferred with your businesses.

So what's the point of changing it?

Iran, China & Cuba already limit speech in their own countries and would really like to extend their reach elsewhere.

Reply Score: 0

Scary
by Smartpatrol on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 20:34 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

Judging by the majority of the posters here I would guess most are left leaning Neo-Socialist Europeans. Thats is proof enough for me to show that the EU is not for the responsibility of control of the global internet.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Scary
by dylansmrjones on Tue 4th Oct 2005 14:03 UTC in reply to "Scary"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Maybe your right? However, I don't think so. At least I hope you're wrong. As a danish libertarian I hope you're wrong.

USA is our partner, in sickness and in health. For good and for worse. Fights/discussions (choose whatever term you like) is common in marriages. Also in between countries.

I don't think EU should have control over the internet.

Nobody or everybody should have control over the internet.

Reply Score: 1