Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Oct 2005 11:36 UTC
Internet & Networking A new resolution introduced in the US Senate offers political backing to the Bush administration by slamming a United Nations effort to exert more influence over the Internet. At the heart of this international political spat is the unique influence that the US federal government enjoys over Internet addresses and the master database of top-level domain names - a legacy of the Internet's origins years ago. The Bush administration recently raised objections to the proposed addition of .xxx as a red-light district for pornographers, for instance, a veto power that no other government is able to wield.
Order by: Score:
Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 11:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this individual case, the way the US is acting here _should_ give you americans some hint as to why you are disliked so much internationally.

Go on, mod me down.... it's an American site/internet/world, right?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:09 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes. It is an American internet.

There are times when nostalgia gets in the way of a person's sight. It IS our baby, but it's all grown up now.

I don't have any particular problem with the status quo. I also generally agree with Bush. In this case I think their view on this is short-sighted and rather silly.

Conversely, the rest of the world is acting like having control over the internet is their *right*, which it is not. If we reliquish control (which I am _not_ arguing against), then everyone else need to realize that *we* are relinquishing control over something that was *ours*.

Just remember that - sacrifices are hard to make, even when they are the right thing to do.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by auwts on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
auwts Member since:
2005-07-31

But the question is, would it have become what it currently is without the help of the rest of the world?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Jamie on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Jamie Member since:
2005-07-06

would it have become what it currently is without the help of the rest of the world

Well considering the web was invented by a Briton (Tim Berners-Lee) and without which the internet would obviously be pretty useless then yes.

The USA has done nothing to deserve total control but has instead abused its power to ensure it has the lion share of all IP addresses as well as maintaining veto power over it.

The internet is interational and needs international control and like international law the current US governement has no respect for it - its time to lay it on the line and take back control.

Freedom means not being dictated to by unelected leaders and as no one outside the US has elected Bush he and his administration has no right to impose anything on any other country.

So it bolis down to dictatorship or freedom - which would you choose?

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by CPUGuy on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
RE[5]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

If you and your country spent all its time and money developing the internet, would you want to relenquish control?

The fact is, the internet was created in America, by Americans, and paid for with American tax dollars.


What we're talking about here is regulation based on international co-operation, not ownership and control. Take telephones. A wide variety of corporations actually own the infrastructure. It's theirs to buy and sell. And if one country decides to block calls or tap into all foreign calls, that is not a question of regulation but of control and is a question for governments to sort out. What regulation might do is ensure the smooth running and future development of the internet in a way that's fair and open for all users in all countries. This is not much more glamorous than ensuring that if I dial a telephone number that's in a foreign country, the connection gets made through the international switching network.

Besides, from a foreign perspective, US "ownership" of the net has not been an unqualified success. It sparked off the biggest stock bubble in 200 years which most likely cost us all trillions when it burst. It sparked massive fraud of which people like Bernie Ebbers are only the tip. And it deluged the world with spam and far worse nasties in a way that would not have happened in many other countries. There are plenty of parts of the world where a career as a counterfeit medicines or porno spammer would prove short and very painful. Alas, the US isn't one of them.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Now you knowQ
by ITPro on Wed 19th Oct 2005 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Now you knowQ"
ITPro Member since:
2005-07-10

Besides, from a foreign perspective, US "ownership" of the net has not been an unqualified success.

How many unqualified successes at a global level have there ever been? The Marshal Plan, maybe? *If so*, that would make one.

It sparked off the biggest stock bubble in 200 years which most likely cost us all trillions when it burst. It sparked massive fraud of which people like Bernie Ebbers are only the tip.

He ha! He ha! He ha ha ha! U.S. "ownership" caused all that, eh? No, no, no. Greed was the cause and greed is universal. What? There's no greed at the UN? There's no greed where you're from? Come now, we all have eyes to see.

And it deluged the world with spam and far worse nasties in a way that would not have happened in many other countries. There are plenty of parts of the world where a career as a counterfeit medicines or porno spammer would prove short and very painful.

Like in places where a career as a free citizen is short and very painful if you don't happen to agree with the current regime?

The idea that somehow international regulation of the Internet would result in some utopian alternate Internet is... well... Utopian. It wouldn't happen. For all this talk of democracy and how U.S. control of the Internet is non-democratic, I can only say that I have yet to be asked to elect anyone to any post at the United Nations. There is no democratic accountability of the United Nations back to me. If I'm ever to be a "world citizen," I demand a world government accountable to me.

I'm not sure I trust anyone to be in control of the Internet. As it stands right now, the U.S. government's control of the Internet is not so very strong, and I wouldn't want it to be much stronger. When the idea of an "Information Superhighway" was being bandied about in the 90's, they weren't talking about the Internet... No, really. They may have said Internet, but they meant "conduit for media companies and other power centers to push content down to consumers." Sort of a super cable system (remember the "500 channels?"). Us little people might have been allowed a few meaningless votes here and there, but we were meant mostly to watch and listen... and cough up bucks to the sponsors. Oh, and they might let us send email to each other. Oh, how generous. Lucky for us, the burgeoning Internet of the day fit nicely into the niche of "Information Superhighway," and had a momentum of its own that nobody controlled outright.

These days, content is indeed being pushed to us over the modern Internet, including a lot of outright crap. But it's a far more democratic medium, where just about anyone can participate, then was originally intended. Unfortunately, there's a hell of a lot of undesirable participation going on, but all proposals to limit the undesirable have so far encroached much too far into personal liberties to be allowed.

ma_d, in an earlier post to this thread, said it well:

"The internet is not international, it's non-national. The idea that it is some sort of bond between countries is incredibly stupid. It's some sort of bond between people, Governments need to keep their hands out of it. Governments have not, have not, have not, helped create the web. Individuals have, and non-profit organizations have helped it to not cave in on itself where absolutely needed."

From the sound of the proposal as I've heard it so far, it's just all about someone else having control. But control of what? I'm not sure we can trust anyone's "control" of the Internet because I'm not sure we can trust anyone's or any nation's motivations for "controlling" the Internet. "Control" sounds too much like censorship and as for this talk of taxation... forget it. It's already too often that someone wants me to pay a "tax" which is merely an expropriation benefitting me in no way.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Now you knowQ
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Now you knowQ"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

No it wasn't.

The Internet was developed on international level with economical aid from many countries.

The Internet is the collaboration of several minor nets. And not something USA invented.

USA invented ARPANET. ARPANET got connected with other nets in this world, and from that connection stems the Internet.

The Internet belongs to all of us, incl. USA.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Your so called "international law" only exists in the form of treaties which various nations have entered into with each other. Beyond them, there is no international body with any authority to arbitrarily impose its will on anybody. Also, treaties can and always have been able to be annulled.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by rcsteiner on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Nice rhetoric, but few facts.

First of all, the internet was a very useful network before http/html, and would still be useful without it. People could still do remote logins, they could still transfer files, they could still create VPNs and ssh tunnels, and they could still use hypertext information, although the format would likely be gopher or some derivative rather than html/http.

Second, many of the IP addresses are assigned to entities in the US simply because the internet as we currently know it was developed in the US, and most of the early adopters and participants were located in the US. That's a function of geography, not politics.

Third, I'm not sure that you can point to many examples where the US has abused its position. I would be a lot more sympathetic if there appeared to be some level of impropriety on the part of the US, but as far as I'm aware there aren't very many (if any) solid examples of such behavior.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by ma_d on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

The internet is not international, it's non-national. The idea that it is some sort of bond between countries is incredibly stupid. It's some sort of bond between people, Governments need to keep their hands out of it.
Governments have not, have not, have not, helped create the web. Individuals have, and non-profit organizations have helped it to not cave in on itself where absolutely needed.

I don't know what you're talking about with this "total control." The US has almost no control. The reason we have the "lions share" of the IP's is because we run the "lions share" of the web. Not to be rude to those contributing outside the US, their contributions are every bit as valuable: But they didn't hit it as hard and early as people in the US did. Eventually, I imagine you'll see a much more equal distribution of IP's. Anyway, having most of the IP's only matters as long as we're stuck on IPv4... Which, supposedly, we'll need to switch from in 2-10 years according to a recent article on slashdot.

I've yet to elect anyone in the UN. My Government seems to have chosen some representatives for me, but I certainly didn't vote for or against them; and trust me, I voted.


The point is, and you're right, it's freedom or tyrrany. And I choose freedom, leave it as free as it is today and don't start legislating on it. Don't put control of parts of it under anymore Governments than it absolutely has to be! And wait to rest control of it until something bad actually happens, not the veto of ".xxx"!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

But the question is, would it have become what it currently is without the help of the rest of the world?

No,

Sir Tim Burners Lee invented HTML and made it open to everybody. Thus the WWW was born. If america invented HTML, it would have been patented and all designers would have to pay money to create documents, and the Internet would still be in the dark ages (That was a joke by the way for you uptight americans)

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

right becasue that is excatly what happened to gopher and FTP (go read a book)

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by rhyder on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

Quite. The Internet is the sum of many technologies and inventions. Britain, for example, is responsible for many inventions which were key to the development of the computer and later the Internet as were many other countries.

Obviously, companies such as MS have stiffled software development in other countries in recent years. I don't think that the US should be rewarded for this.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Quite. The Internet is the sum of many technologies and inventions. Britain, for example, is responsible for many inventions which were key to the development of the computer and later the Internet as were many other countries.

Obviously, companies such as MS have stiffled software development in other countries in recent years. I don't think that the US should be rewarded for this.

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

Pretty lame. With Linux/GNU being so popular, anybody with even a weak pc is able to develop software. Also, with web technologies, it's just so damn easy. It doesn't mean everyone will switch off of MS, but software can be made by anybody these days.

By the way, anything wrong with MS hiring people all over the world to write code? Do you think that someone in India getting a paycheck from MS prefers to eat dirt writing code for their own enjoyment?

I see more software being written these days by more people than ever before. Credit the internet and GNU/Linux.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Now you knowQ
by morgoth on Thu 20th Oct 2005 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Now you knowQ"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: "By the way, anything wrong with MS hiring people all over the world to write code? Do you think that someone in India getting a paycheck from MS prefers to eat dirt writing code for their own enjoyment?"

Quite possibly Microsoft hires them from overseas developing countries because it can then pay them very low wages, much lower than what they'd have to pay to US employees? The US government has allowed it's businesses to abuse slave labour and sweatshops overseas, and that's morally a disgrace.

Dave

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Quote: "By the way, anything wrong with MS hiring people all over the world to write code? Do you think that someone in India getting a paycheck from MS prefers to eat dirt writing code for their own enjoyment?"

Quite possibly Microsoft hires them from overseas developing countries because it can then pay them very low wages, much lower than what they'd have to pay to US employees? The US government has allowed it's businesses to abuse slave labour and sweatshops overseas, and that's morally a disgrace.

Dave

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

Welcome to the global economy. I don't like it either. I'd rather have a job than not, though. Maybe, eventually, they will get paid fairly. It has to start someplace, my friend.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Nobody *really* cares what you people did/think/want. We just humour you with some regularity because we see signs of serious mental derangement.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

So you shouldn't use a computer at all, cause the first computer was build Zuse who was a german.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Conversely, the rest of the world is acting like having control over the internet is their *right*, which it is not."

And nethier is it your right.

"...then everyone else need to realize that *we* are relinquishing control over something that was *ours*."

Everything has started somewhere. Railroads started in Britain but you wouldnt expect the brits to exert control over american railroads, would you?
I'm not saying the UN is the right place for Internet governance but neither should it be controlled by the U.S (or any other country).

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Now you knowQ
by Who is That on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:08 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by Scott on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
Scott Member since:
2005-09-11

Sure, let's get it back to an all-democratic senate again ;) That's what we need.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Scott on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Scott Member since:
2005-09-11

That was sarcasm, by the way.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:12 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

right because if i let you stay in my place fro free, you also own it. Make your own damn internet.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Now you knowQ
by dekernel on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:38 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
dekernel Member since:
2005-07-07

Out of curiosity, why does the UN feel the need to wrench control from the US? What are we doing wrong that the UN would do better?
I have not heard one good reason other than because people think that the UN would do a "better" job.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:39 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this individual case,..."

Damned if we do; damned if we don't...

Reply Score: 0

RE: Now you knowQ
by mario on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:42 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
mario Member since:
2005-07-06

Go on, mod me down...

This slashdot type of crybaby-ing is disturbing. You know perfectly well that osnews is not an US site at all, and then you play the victim. This works excellently on slashdot, but I was hoping osnews readers wouldn't fall for the cheap trick.

Reply Score: 1

morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

That might be the case, but he is absolutely correct in his comment.

Americans are much disliked throughout most of the world, they just don't like to hear it. It's called self denial. America has one serious problem - it loves to shove it's ideas, thoughts and anything else down every other countries throat. The US government likes to dictate control over other countries (illegal coup in Iran in 65, illegal invasion of Vietnam, illegal invasion of Iraq, illegal invasion of Afghanistan, and the list goes on). In fact - the US has invaded more countries in the last 100 years than any OTHER country. In most instances for either political or economical/commercial gain. The US is fabulous at assuming control over world resources, for it's own greedy end. The US is the largest polluter in the world, yet it won't sign and abide by the Kyoto agreement (because it knows that in order to change it's f--ked up manufacturing process would make their economy go bust). Same with still using imperial measurements, even though the ISO standard is metric, and has been for many years now. The US simply wants to do its own thing, and not conform to a "world standard".

I say go the UN - break the internet apart, and block access to any US "internet" style DNS addresses from the "world internet". Furthermore, ban US companies from registering DNS names in the non-US "internet". See how far US businesses get when you cut their access to anywhere else in the world except mainland US and her allies. This will directly affect the US economy. It's about time that the world, as a whole, stood up to the US bullies, and used collective economics to force the US government to behave itself.

Dave

Reply Score: 5

Anonymous Member since:
---

First of all Morgoth is not European, he is Australian (and he is not the first Australian I know who dislikes the US)

"Why is it Europeans care so little what happens in other nations as far as humans rights violations go, but they flip and call the US a police state and wave the Patriot act in the air? Maybe we should send you Kerry."

Please stop once and forever this pathetic excuse. You only intervene when there is some national interest of yours at stake.
Otherwise why didn't you intervene in Africa when millions of people were being slaughtered?

Reply Score: 0

mario Member since:
2005-07-06

Otherwise why didn't you intervene in Africa when millions of people were being slaughtered?

Actually, USA was the only country pushing for a strong stance against the Sudanese government for what their army (with the help of local militais) was doing in Darfur. But the european and particularly arab members were opposed, so the resolution didn't pass. I remember it was stil Colin Powell the US secretary of state, at the time, and he really tried hard, but to no avail.

I think in this case you are cursing at the wrong door. Or you just count on people to be ignorant enough to mod you up.. It worked.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:18 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And its exactly why the US hates the UN

Reply Score: 0

RE: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:22 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

i'm not american but i feel tat y should the american let the others control the technology they have develope?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The internet was NOT invented by USA.

It's a myth. USA invented the ARPANET. The ARPANET was connected to other internation nets, and that's how the Internet came to existence.

It's not created by USA and therefore belongs to all of us.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

right, and that is why most IP addresses are in the US (one of the complaints) becasue it was made by the whole world and the US hogged it all. I can only imagine where you people get this stuff from.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

USA got most IPs because they took that part for themself.

This couldn't be different since some parts of the technology was created by USA.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"USA got most IPs because they took that part for themself."

no its becasue they made the net and were using it before everyone else so it really didnt matter. MIT has the entire 18.x.x.x range. Every little gadget on campus gets a real permanent IP. Do you wonder why MIT can do that but not <random EU school>? It's because they made the damn thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Now you knowQ
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Now you knowQ"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

No they didn't. They created ARPANET.

And IPs used on the Internet is based on the same system as ARPANET. The Internet is ARPANET connected with many other nets. And several Communication Layers on top of it.

That's why.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"The internet was NOT invented by USA."

Okay, then who invented it? Name the country?

"It's a myth. USA invented the ARPANET. The ARPANET was connected to other internation nets, and that's how the Internet came to existence."

ARPANET was the foundation for what became the internet and the closest thing to the roots of the internet. As you admit, APRANET was American.

"It's not created by USA and therefore belongs to all of us."

Go back and forth all you wish, the foundation of what you, myself and others enjoy today as the internet, came from an American project...spin it all you want.

The internet, as a whole, doesn't belong to anyone.

All this issue is concerning the main TLD's and DNS issues, which is only a part (important part for sure) of the modern internet. Bringing HTTP, WWW, and all the other protocols into it, is really just muddying the waters and avoiding the actual discussion of the issue at debate....DNS TLD control.

"connected to other internation nets"

And where were most of these "nets" located? Right.

Sorry you can't bring yourself to admit the origin of the internet you use today.

Spin and flame all you want. The facts are the facts and neither of us (or anyone else) can change them.

Frankly I wish some other country had come up with the origins of the internet. I told myself many years ago that as the internet spread, sooner or later the anti-americanism would kick in and make a mess. Of course, for some, as long as their country didn't create it's foundation, they will never be happy with who is in control.

To say the internet does now owe it's roots to the American's is to be a tad lacking of historical facts. All said and done, who really cares! We helped give the world something and as usual, we get shit on for wanting just a bit of control over the TLD's...wow.

JT

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

There is no roots of the existing internet.

"connected to other internation nets" should have been international nets. All but one net is placed outside USA. Inside USA the network exist of several national networks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The internet was NOT invented by USA.

It's a myth. USA invented the ARPANET. The ARPANET was connected to other internation nets, and that's how the Internet came to existence.

It's not created by USA and therefore belongs to all of us.

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

I'm pretty sure it does. Why would you think otherwise? Just cause the US can veto something does not mean you guys need to get your knickers in a bunch. Is this the most important thing to bicker over these days? How trivial.

Reply Score: 0

Most countries dislike unilateral demands.
by rcsteiner on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:24 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

I'm not sure why this is a surprise -- I can't think of any country on the planet that wouldn't react defensively in the face of such an unprecedented (and as far as I can tell largely baseless) demand.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The Internet was created bu connecting several net, incl. ARPANET.

USA did not invent the Internet, therefore it shouldn't control it.

It's should be controlled by all democratic countries.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

"It's should be controlled by all democratic countries."
Do you mean china, lybia or Iran?

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

NOOOOOOOOO

They are not democratic!

Democratic countries == USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Hungary, Israel, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and so on (I won't list all democratic countries - that would be quite a long list).

But Iran, Lybia, Communist China do not qualify as democratic.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

handing control to the UN gives control to communist china since it is on the security council (with a veto). kiss your free internet goodbye if that happens.

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I didn't say anything about UN!

I specifically said DEMOCRATIC NATIONS!

NOT UN!

UN is pretty much dead in regard to solve anything.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:47 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Your wrong on both of, er, whatever you want to call your sentences. Do a little more reasearch before you let your emotions form into words that you feel are fact :

Reply Score: 0

RE: Now you knowQ
by ma_d on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:22 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

The reasoning, and it's quite good, is such: We're the only country in the world with no topical limitation on free speech that is a world power.

UK, Germany, they enjoy the illegalization of Naziism.

And I think we all know why China doesn't need it's tyrranical hands all over the web.

In the end, the US has almost no real power over the Web, and that's good. This is simply other countries attempting to gain a handlehold on something which no government has a handle hold on.

And to get that hold, they're using baffoons who can't see past their anti-American views.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by lpetrazickis on Fri 21st Oct 2005 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
lpetrazickis Member since:
2005-07-06

The USA enjoys the illegalization of child pr0nography. The argument against child pr0n is that it is an incitement for child molestation. The argument against Nazism is that it is an incitement for murder. I'd say that Nazism is worse myself, and that if just one of the two ought to be outlawed, it's Nazism. Having both illegal, of course, is preferable.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Now you knowQ
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:36 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this individual case, the way the US is acting here _should_ give you americans some hint as to why you are disliked so much internationally.

Acting to protect our property? I have never seen a larger collection of Euro-whiners in my life. Now you know why Americans can't stand Europeans you people have totally lost touch with reality. Get over it!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:34 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

the way the US is acting here _should_ give you americans some hint as to why you are disliked so much internationally.

Instead of us Americans spending so much time worrying about why you dislike us, maybe the rest of the world should be asking why we dislike you.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Instead of us Americans spending so much time worrying about why you dislike us, maybe the rest of the world should be asking why we dislike you.

---------

thats pretty obvious by whats on display in here - a lot of you are inbred morons whos thought processes are amazing!

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

considering the US is a nation of immigrants and we get fresh people everyday. you are the inbred morons

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

considering the US is a nation of immigrants and we get fresh people everyday. you are the inbred morons

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


Heh, good point. The US is really the country of the WORLD as everyone seems to be coming here, plane, boat, or simpy by running across the border.

Come one, come all, and bicker like there is no tomorrow!

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

America! Give us the Light and explain the poor Rest of the word How Life, Death, Freedom, and Justice should be. And Forgive Us to Have Offended The Great Master of The Word. Amen.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 23:25 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by JoHa on Thu 20th Oct 2005 03:16 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
JoHa Member since:
2005-08-16

Um, some knowledge of the actual situation would be helpful here, rather than just painting it as "U.S. vs. the World."

ICANN, which governs the domain name system, is an independent nonprofit corporation. Just like other governing bodies and other important institutions that make the Internet go (ISC, W3C etc.). It was originally started by the U.S. government but went independent in 1998 -- its last ties with the Commerce Department will be cut next year.

From ICANN's site: "ICANN is governed by an internationally diverse Board of Directors overseeing the policy development process. ICANN's President directs an international staff, working from three continents, who ensure that ICANN meets its operational commitment to the Internet community." http://www.icann.org/general/

And a U.S. Senate resolution is just a non-binding expression of what the Senate as a body "believes" -- it isn't legislation and doesn't have any power to do anything. And while the U.S. government created the Internet as an open system, and U.S. academics created all the protocols and services that make it work, it isn't in President Bush's power to shut it down or even come close -- so the doomsday scare tactics by UN or EU partisans are just FUD. Even if all Americans and all the U.S.-based companies that are most of the Tier 1 peers collaborated in such a ridiculous scheme, the Internet would keep on trucking -- that's what its architecture was designed to do.

I am an American who thinks Bush is ruining our country, and particularly our reputation abroad, but I also happen to think that ICANN is by far the best-equipped body to govern the domain name system.

Check out the people on ICANN's board: http://www.icann.org/general/board.html

I would rather have an independent organization led by people like Vint Cerf in charge of the domain name system than some kind of neutered wing of the UN or EU any day. I mean, talk about governance problems!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 10:35 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---
RE: Now you knowQ
by tummy on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:15 UTC
tummy
Member since:
2005-09-14

>Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this >individual case, the way the US is acting here >_should_ give you americans some hint as to why you >are disliked so much internationally.

And this demonstrates why the rest of the world is just screwed up. Sit back and watch the US build a great vehicle of freedom and then demand to control it.

Build your own internet. Noone's stopping you and hey, the specs are even free.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Build your own internet. Noone's stopping you and hey, the specs are even free."

Might be an idea that, then we can block the US from using it and cut spam by 90%.

We can implement the .xxx domain system and then block it to get rid of the porn too.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by vinayak on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
vinayak Member since:
2005-07-27

You can build your own network and not the internet. Remember that Internet is a network of networks. Building your own and not integrating it with the internet means it's basically useless.

You cannot have "China's internet" or "EU's internet". By definition there can be only one Internet.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by somebody on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

You can build your own network and not the internet. Remember that Internet is a network of networks. Building your own and not integrating it with the internet means it's basically useless.

You cannot have "China's internet" or "EU's internet". By definition there can be only one Internet.


So, after other world having one and US having one? Your brain logic tells you that there will be Internet (US) and Othernet (other). And if we take the word Internet and dissect it, we get "International Net". Again your logic tells you US should be considered International and others... well,... some others that apparently exist on the same planet but you somehow forgot to squash those bugs.

You are just in time for your regular lobotomy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"And if we take the word Internet and dissect it, we get "International Net"."

hahahahah! that was the best post today from a Euro-Weenie! "International Net" . Next thing you know you will say that IPC stands for International process commuinication.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

By definition there can be only one Internet.

That's what they said about the Highlander. But it didn't stop 2 (or was it 3?) sequels and 2 TV series from being made.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by josel on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
josel Member since:
2005-09-30

Hmmm.. you do not seem to understand about what the internet is.
I think its a necessary strategic decision to remove DNS and IP control from US and probably rather easy. It will give some problems at first but everything solvable when yankee business suddenly has no access to european market etc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by jessta on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
jessta Member since:
2005-08-17

when yankee business suddenly has no access to european market etc.
ummm...what about when european business doesn't have access to american market?

I reckon people should just remember the damn IP address then we wouldn't have this problem ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by somebody on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

ummm...what about when european business doesn't have access to american market?

??? Well, apart from not being able to buy Levi's (and will have a reason get rid of Apple, if my costomers couldn't buy them, I wouldn't need to either. This is positive not negative) there's no change.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Oh, you mean the US owes hundreds of billions of dollars to countries worldwide for all the internet infrastructure they laid down?

Sorry. Right-o. We're in the wrong, we'll be happy to admit... as soon as the check comes in the mail.

Idiot.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well the french invented "la carte à puces" (smartcard?) and an american company, helped b the US government and a secret agency (NSA if I remember well) stole it !

Why not just americans just invented one of your own, the specs were of course not free ;)

Reply Score: 0

Does this squabbling really help anyone?
by vinayak on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:19 UTC
vinayak
Member since:
2005-07-27

Various countries are squabbling for exerting control of the internet like cry-babies. This is not helping anyone. The politicians are going to spoil the party for techies as well as the general public.

For example, The Bush administration want strict regulation of adult content. The chinese want to edit out sites which support/help freesom of speech and democracy.

At best this will fragment the internet which is the surest way to kill it. This will laed to the permission culture which Lessig often talks about.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

nothing can destroy the interet

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

nothing can destroy the interet
-----------

How about a new MS bourne network worm? SQL-Slammer, anybody?

Reply Score: 0

Here is an idea...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

How about all the non-US developed technologies, protocols, etc. get removed from the Internet, then we can see how everyone in the US really feels about the "it's mine, we made it" claim.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Here is an idea...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:50 UTC in reply to "Here is an idea..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I could live with DECnet.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Here is an idea...
by rcsteiner on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Here is an idea..."
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

We used a DDP network at Unisys between hosts all over the world, IBM has had its own networking protocols for years, and airlines still use IATA Host to Host as well as a zillion other non-IP-based protocols in addition to TCP/IP, so "the internet" isn't the only solution, or even the best one for some types of applications.

It just happens to be the one open to the public...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Here is an idea...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Here is an idea..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

aah.. decnet.. miss that..

Reply Score: 0

RE: Here is an idea...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:26 UTC in reply to "Here is an idea..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"How about all the non-US developed technologies, protocols, etc. get removed from the Internet, then we can see how everyone in the US really feels about the "it's mine, we made it" claim.""

We built the internet, I imagine we could come up with replacements for those protocols and technologies.

The better question is how far would of those "non-US" developed technologies and protocols have gone without the internet?

""it's mine, we made it" claim.""
Not a claim, it's a fact. Now get over yourself.

JT

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Here is an idea...
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Here is an idea..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

USA did not build or invent the Internet.

USA created the ARPANET.

The Internet is a network of several international networks. I don't see why you can claim these non-US parts of the network to be US-parts.

There would be no Internet without the networks from the rest of the world. There would just be a minor ARPANET.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Here is an idea...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:28 UTC in reply to "Here is an idea..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

great idea. they lose the www. infact they lose all their protocols as well, packet switching was invented by a brit after all.

Reply Score: 1

Tipical
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Here we're gonna have US citizens saying "we built it, you're free to make one" and the rest of the world saying : "well, we can, but don't you think it would be stupid?".

Always a matter a supranationality, which is much praised in all part of the world (remeber that no government is fully trustworthy), except in US where people tend to think "Wow, it's cool, we have more than the rest of the world, gov rocks!!!".

And then, a US guy is going to point one non-democratic country and says "Why should we trust them?". Endless debate and cultural differences...

Reply Score: 1

Well they would say that, wouldn't they
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Well, either the internet is a special case or it is not. And if it is just a utility like phones, running water or electricity then there is nothing controversial about handing some aspects of it to an international body like those which regulate the postal and telephone unions. They work and are so unremarkable no one pays any attention to them. You post a letter in France and it gets delivered in Malaysia. End of story.

This sounds like it's going the typical way of the Bush presidency. Hostility and intransigence with a lashing of raw Christianity thrown in, anger and depression even among America's friends, followed eventually by a rather sour US withdrawal and a compromise. At the end, the US gets less than it would have got had it been a little more thoughtful and subtle in the first place.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:34 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Sit back and watch the US build a great vehicle of freedom and then demand to control it.

You do know that the most interesting part of the internet, the World Wide Web (and things such as http and html and the first few webpages) were created singlehandedly by Tim Berners-Lee, at CERN, in Zwitserland?

And apparently, the internet isn't about freedom, freedom of speech etc. at all. If it really were, than why was the .xxx domain blocked due to political reasons?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Using Unix, C, and NextStep, all originallly USA technologies.

I wouldn't have mentioned it, except, you opened the door Thom...

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by BryanFeeney on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
BryanFeeney Member since:
2005-07-06

Software which was developed using principles like Boolean alegreba, and for-loop constructs, developed by Brits (George Boole, Alan Turing) and the Dutch (Djikstra).

Not to mention that the whole packet-switching thing (basis of TCP folks) was invented by a Brit as well.

I wouldn't have mentioned it, except, you opened the door...

The fact is all interesting technology has been developed by people all around the world either working together, or working separately on different aspects of the same problem. The Internet is no different.

The concern is that the UN has often been fair to a fault, allowing, for example, despots and dictators to sit on the largely discredited Human Rights Commission. Likewise the International Telecoms Union (ITU), the closest UN body, has built up a reputation of leaning too much to the needs of telecoms providers (most of them national monopolies until very recently) at the expense of the consumer.

Ironically, ICANN was originally set up as an international representative body, but was set up as a commercial firm as people feared that too much red-tape would strangle the web. For example, the ITU once rejected the idea of the Internet in favour of a different, more easily controlled system. However there are some who say now that ICANN, and the whole system, has become too commercialised, as evidenced by the tug of war between it and Verisign.

On the other hand, some of the loudest calls for international control have come from places like China, the Middle East and Africa, places with poor records in transparency, justice and free-speech.

Ultimately a balance needs to be struck, and people need to sit down and talk to one another. This requires diplomacy, an art which is increasingly neglected in international politics (and one in which the current US administration is particularly weak). A good diplomat could make something like this drag on for years in an impotent committee, a fudge which would be in everyone's interests. Giving the metaphorical finger like this will only add fuel to the fire.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[5]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Now you knowQ"
RE[6]: Now you knowQ
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Now you knowQ"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Hey troll ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Using electricity, discovered by the USA.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Using electricity, discovered by the USA."

Only because he goto the patent office quicker :-)

Besides you people in the US should come into the moden world on put your power lines under ground.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Now you knowQ
by rcsteiner on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Now you knowQ"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Many areas of the US have had power lines underground for many years, including the suburb of the Twin Cities where I lived previously and the suburb of Atlanta where I live now.

Yet more proof that all generalizations are false. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Now you knowQ
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Now you knowQ"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Electricity was discovered in ancient Egypt. And later rediscovered in Europe (in Italy).

Reply Score: 1

RE[9]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Mathematics on which all other technologies are based was discovered by Arabs

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Now you knowQ
by BryanFeeney on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Now you knowQ"
BryanFeeney Member since:
2005-07-06

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity


According to Thales of Miletus, writing circa 600 BCE, a form of electricity was known to the Ancient Greeks, who found that rubbing fur on various substances, such as amber, would cause a particular attraction between the two. The Greeks noted that the amber buttons could attract light objects such as hair, and that if they rubbed the amber for long enough, they could even get a spark to jump. This is the origin of the word "electricity", from the Greek ēlektron = "amber", which came from an old root ēlek- = "shine".

An object found in Iraq in 1938, dated to about 250 BCE and called the Baghdad Battery, resembles a galvanic cell and is believed by some to have been used for electroplating. The conjecture that this or other ancient artifacts had an electrical function remains unproven, and such proposed ancient knowledge bears no known continuous relationship to the development of modern electrical technology.


So the Greeks discovered AC electricity, and the Iraqis (heh) discovered DC.

This is the list of scientists involved in the development of knowledge of electricity listed on that page:

Thales of Miletus, William Gilbert, Otto von Guericke, Robert Boyle, Stephen Gray, C. F. Du Fay, Pieter van Musschenbroek, William Watson, Benjamin Franklin, Ebenezer Kinnersley, Michael Faraday, Luigi Galvani, Alessandro Volta, André-Marie Ampère, Georg Simon Ohm and Nikola Tesla.

This just goes to show what I said in my initial comment, every major innovation is the result of significant efforts by disparate individuals scattered across the globe. If you think about it, that's a wonderful thing.

Any attempt by any country or citizen thereof to claim the sole ownership of any innovation betrays not only collosal arrogance, but also profound ignorance of the history and method of scientific research.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And we know how trustworthy the wikipedia is. About as trustworthy as a blue helmet soldier in the Congo. (aka a pedo rape machine)

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Any attempt by any country or citizen thereof to claim the sole ownership of any innovation betrays not only collosal arrogance, but also profound ignorance of the history and method of scientific research.

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

Settle down, there sizzle-chest.

You are blowing this all out of proportion. Using words/phrases like "collosal arrogance", "profound ignorance" makes it seem like your retort has life and death implications. Geez...

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by Scott on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Scott Member since:
2005-09-11

The reason you won't see an .xxx domain is that XXX has bad connotations. You can have your trash/porn on any of the domains (well, maybe not on the .gov domains). There is no US led fight against porn on the internet, except where that porn explicitly violates law -- i.e. child porn. Your argument that this is a violation of freedom of speech is really inane. Can't there be a more creative argument brought up?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Robocoastie on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

the .xxx domain blocking was stupid I agree with you because it would have been an excellent way for people to filter it out or block access. Of course how would one enforce it? - impossible really, the re-direct and preview sites to them would still exist and for every one taken down when caught 100,000 would pop back up there's more money in it than drug traficing (sp?) ever had in commissions from these "temptors".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by ronaldst on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@ Thom

"And apparently, the internet isn't about freedom, freedom of speech etc. at all. If it really were, than why was the .xxx domain blocked due to political reasons?"

Because smut doesn't belong anywhere and access to it isn't a right. It needs to be wiped out ASAP.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by John Nilsson on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

Because smut doesn't belong anywhere and access to it isn't a right. It needs to be wiped out ASAP.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. The rest of the world just doesn't agree with you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by ma_d on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

You realize you're preaching to people who'd happily stone you?
There have been at least 100 posts which mention the need for freedom, both sides are arguing over which way gets the most freedom: And here you are, making a full afront to the notion of free speech by arguing that "smut" must be abolished...

I suggest you re-aim your crusade to abolish "smut" by convincing people that it, does in fact, have no value and they don't want to look at it anyway. Instead of telling them they won't look at it, period.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by tummy on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
tummy Member since:
2005-09-14


You do know that the most interesting part of the internet, the World Wide Web (and things such as http and html and the first few webpages) were created singlehandedly by Tim Berners-Lee, at CERN, in Zwitserland?


I'm well aware of that. The internet is more than the WWW although it is the most visible. The first successful web browser which introduced people to the WWW was made in the USA. Most of the computer innovations in the last half century also comes from the USA. Think about apple, intel, microsoft etc..


And apparently, the internet isn't about freedom, freedom of speech etc. at all. If it really were, than why was the .xxx domain blocked due to political reasons?


Free speech is different from freedom to control. A suggestion for a .sexwithgoats TLD wouldn't be accepted either but that doesn't somehow mean I don't have freedom of speech and can't rant about that topic on my blog if I felt the need to.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by ACarlow on Wed 19th Oct 2005 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
ACarlow Member since:
2005-10-18

"Freedom of speech" as defined in the first ammendment by the framers of the US constitution refered to _political_ speech. It was never meant to mean "you can say whatever the hell you want regardless of consquences." It's amazing how few Americans are even aware of this fact, though I must admin rulings by the courts have made this an unfortunately confusing topic for uninfomred bystanders.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"And apparently, the internet isn't about freedom, freedom of speech etc. at all. If it really were, than why was the .xxx domain blocked due to political reasons?"

Of course everyone jumps to the conclusion that .xxx was blocked solely, or even mostly on a morality basis (although the media is doing it's best to hype of this argument). One of the reasons which has not really seemed to garner any attention is that the US government does not want to begin segmenting and enforcing laws on the basis of type of business when it comes to the internet.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by ma_d on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now you knowQ"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Because .xxx was about restricting pornography on the internet. Where have you been Thom?
This article, on wikipedia, explains quite well just why .xxx was stupid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.XXX

The biggest part of the purpose was to convince pornographers to move their content to it; which we all know they aren't going to do... They do advertise for a reason: They want new customers.

Reply Score: 1

Status quo
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Well, this shows how US like to dominate de world.

I agree that US invented the internet and want to control it. But the chineses invented the powder, so they must control it too?

Think again, if US wanna control the net so much, this is gonna end like rest of the world's net and US net. Who is gonna lose in this scenario?

This control over internet that US like to do is the same behavior that the american people like to speak in "freedom of speach"?

Do what I say, but don't do what I do...

cya

Reply Score: 0

RE: Status quo
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:15 UTC in reply to "Status quo"
Anonymous Member since:
---

when you use gun poweder do you use chinese facilities? no. when you use the internet do you use american infrastructure and computers? yes.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Status quo
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Status quo"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Only when accessing American sites. Just like you use European networks and computers when accessing European sites.

So, what's your point realy?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Status quo
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:15 UTC in reply to "Status quo"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I think that's already happening. Look at who's using IPv6, and how's still using IPv4.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Status quo
by Scott on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Status quo"
Scott Member since:
2005-09-11

If you are suggesting that the US is reluctant to switch, then you are right. But if you are suggesting that others are already switching, you may be entirely wrong. The US doesn't just switch over due to cost. The developing places can afford to, since they're not "upgrading" into IPv6. The US would have to make a major upgrade; others don't; others are starting from scratch at scale. So the US will slowly migrate over; in fact, the US is already doing this. By the way, IPv6 was made compatible so that we _could_ migrate over affordably.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>You cannot have "China's internet" or "EU's internet". By definition there can be only one Internet.

If things continue this way, there will be a split between the US and the rest of the world.
So yes, there will be "internet" and the "US internet".

It should have happened already a few years ago anyway.

Reply Score: 0

.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

And apparently, the internet isn't about freedom, freedom of speech etc. at all. If it really were, than why was the .xxx domain blocked due to political reasons?

Because they're in the second phrase of "demand to control it"...isn't this what the whole article's about?

Reply Score: 0

War By Other Means
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

America likes to talk about inventions and morals as if nobody else exists. Without European knowledge and know how their consitution and the internet wouldn't exist, and they would've lost the space race.

All this talk of people hating freedom and crying like children is just a juvinile response to the fact that an awful lot of people out their don't like Americas swaggering attitude and brutal diplomacy.

I like the idea of international control and permissions. Why? I'm fed up to the back-teeth with the cultural, economic, and militaristic spam that America forces down every open orifice. Keep it to yourself.

Reply Score: 2

Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

...and the U.S. out of the U.N. The U.N. exists mostly to try to allow the rest of the world an opportunity to collude towards the goal of infringing upon U.S. sovereignty and co-opting American property for global use.

U.S. tax payers footed the bill for the creation of the Internet. We were generous and shared our creation with the world. This is a matter of jurisdiction; at stake are issues which are not under the auspices of any global body but rather the sovereign property of the United States.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:22 UTC in reply to "Get the U.N. out of the U.S."
RE: Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:45 UTC in reply to "Get the U.N. out of the U.S."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"U.S. tax payers footed the bill for the creation of the Internet."

Does the US owns the rest of the worlds phones and fax machines as well, or just the interent ?

You created the internet as a tool of war, others made it into a tool for humanity.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:32 UTC in reply to "Get the U.N. out of the U.S."
Anonymous Member since:
---

No. US tax payers footed the bill for some of the research / US based infrastructure at best. The rest of the world payed for and maintains their own infrastructure. By connecting US networks to other networks around the world doesn't / didn't cause US tax payer money to be spent.

Then bare in mind that what 99% of the world see as the internet, the www, was created in switzerland/france at cern. Last time I checked the US wasn't in europe so didn't contribute towards this.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
by rayiner on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:39 UTC in reply to "Get the U.N. out of the U.S."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

...and the U.S. out of the U.N. The U.N. exists mostly to try to allow the rest of the world an opportunity to collude towards the goal of infringing upon U.S. sovereignty and co-opting American property for global use.

Said like someone who has never actually studied the history of the UN, and has never actually been exposed to the workings of international order. The UN was created to enhance US power, not to diminish it. In a time when it was the Soviet Union versus the West, the UN was a creation that purported to unite the world, under Western terms. Throughout its history, the UN has been instrumental in disseminating American foreign policy. Sure, Americans only ever hear about the times when the UN pushes back (blame the media), but what they don't hear about is all the times the UN has served as a tool with which the US can promulgate its international agenda.

Reply Score: 1

ACarlow Member since:
2005-10-18

"...when it was the Soviet Union versus the West, the UN was a creation that purported to unite the world, under Western terms. Throughout its history, the UN has been instrumental in disseminating American foreign policy."

And since the UN is no longer disseminating our evil foreign policy, I for one agree we should no longer participate in such a corrupt organization.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Said like someone who has never actually studied the history of the UN, and has never actually been exposed to the workings of international order. The UN was created to enhance US power, not to diminish it. In a time when it was the Soviet Union versus the West, the UN was a creation that purported to unite the world, under Western terms. Throughout its history, the UN has been instrumental in disseminating American foreign policy. Sure, Americans only ever hear about the times when the UN pushes back (blame the media), but what they don't hear about is all the times the UN has served as a tool with which the US can promulgate its international agenda.

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

And what would that be? Make sure that countries have stable, friendly governments so that we can all get along? Maybe the road taken to get there is questionable, but hell, nothing is perfect. Mistakes are made. Does it make sense, then, to just disband the UN?

Reply Score: 0

All squabbling aside
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I could see giving control over to some body that is not the UN. Do you really want to give a say to how the internet is managed to such guardians of liberty and spam control as China? Remember this is the same organization that put Libya, Syria, and Sudan on the Human Rights Commission...

Reply Score: 4

Cautious, But Not Opposed
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 12:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I would not be opposed of turning control of the internet over to an international body as long as it had an internet Bill of Rights. Please just don't turn it over to the UN.

Reply Score: 1

My concern
by mario on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:00 UTC
mario
Member since:
2005-07-06

The way the Internet works in the US seems very good, to me. Take for example, my native Croatia, where you can't get a domain unless you are a registered company. Same with Finland where I live, untile a year ago! You have no idea how I hate this restriction.
Contrast this to the US, where absolutely anyone can register a domain. And by anyone I mean not only simple citizens, but also foreigners. So, obviously, my domain is under .com and not .fi or .hr. I could have registered it under .us, too, if so I chose. There are other countries that are as open in this regard as the US, but the way the UN works, the result would be a mixture of good and bad. Just like the decisions taken by the General Assembly or even the Security Council, which are an average of the national interests of the member countries. Hate my post if you want, by I prefere the US way of handling the Internet than most other countries, including Russia and China.

Reply Score: 2

RE: My concern
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:08 UTC in reply to "My concern"
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

It has nothing to do with your country's gov. It has to do with the lack of IP the US regulatory gave to your country. I'm guessing that if Croaty had a high number of IP available, things would be different.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My concern
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE: My concern"
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

Sorry Croatia and not Croaty. I'm not used to using country names in a different language than mine (I'm French by the way).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My concern
by mario on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE: My concern"
mario Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, it has everything to do with a country's laws and therefore, lawmakers (or, in other words, government). Some countries are worse than others in this respect, that's all.

On a side note: to illustrate just how bad the situation in Finland used to be, I'll tell you that even many Finnish companies (who therefore, had the right to register .fi domains) opted for .com or .net domains, because it was cheaper. Finlands largest auction site is, for example, huuto.net. One of the largest online retailers is hetanttila.com, and the largest computer hardware store is www.verkkokauppa.net. Why was it expensive to register a .fi? because of the monopolistic status the finnish registrars were in. It was all a bit too communist-bureocracy-like.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: My concern
by dekernel on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My concern"
dekernel Member since:
2005-07-07

My suggestion would be to fix the problem within your country. You just said that it is cheaper to register with US controlled domain versus the Finnish controlling body. Now imagine if the UN had control of this. Do you really think it would be cheaper?

I am not bashing Europeans here, I am just pointing out facts. Typically, items/services are cheaper to purchase in the US versus in Europe.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: My concern
by mario on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My concern"
mario Member since:
2005-07-06

Now imagine if the UN had control of this. Do you really think it would be cheaper?

I completely agree with you (you may notice that if you read the thread I started). In fact, I am afraid of UN's bureocracy, which probably matches and surpasses that of croatia's and finland's combined. And with countries that want to control the content on the net like China or Iran (and these oppressive regimes are either the majority, or have the backing of countries that have vested interest in them, like EU in Russia and China), the way the internet would be regulated can be only less open than it is now. An average of good and shit is .. a bit less smelly shit.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: My concern
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My concern"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Your equation is excellent.

Reply Score: 0

RE: My concern
by Matzon on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:09 UTC in reply to "My concern"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

Thats because you're TLD administrator has imposed those restrictions. Most other countries allow everybody to buy, tho some require native citizenship

Reply Score: 1

Americas internet.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Whatever you think of undue US influence in Internet affairs, can you reall imagine what it would be like if the EU had a hand in it?

I am a UK citizen broadly in favor of better EU ties.
However, I consider the EU Beurocratic and over burdened with burnt out national politicians, all of whom appear to consider it their national duty to bicker over mostly meaningless minutie. (There are exceptions, but they tend to get drowned out in the noise. Its like a micocosm of Usenet.)

The thing to realise is that the Internet has this influence for a reason. The backbone and structures of the internet were funded by US govenments and corperations over the course of the last 40 years or so.

Really technically the internet should be controlled mostly by US corperations, as most of it is owned by them, in the same way I feel I own my TV because i paid for it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Americas internet.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:24 UTC in reply to "Americas internet."
Anonymous Member since:
---

A UK citizen in favour of better EU ties? A pity you're not European. It's nice. Ask some frenchmen about it...

Reply Score: 0

RE: Americas internet.
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 17:00 UTC in reply to "Americas internet."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Im a UK citizen too and i have to say thats the best description of the EU ive ever heard.

"The EU: Its like a microcosm of usenet"

haha!

You people realise that some pretty restrictive countries are in the UN, right? Im not too keen on the internet being in american control but at least that doesnt leave it open to all the political scuffling and dealing itll be under if we put it on the board, so to speak.

I say we need to give the internet to something pure. something innocent. give the internet to the children. or better yet, http://www.sealandgov.com/ .

Reply Score: 0

Please clarify...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I'm not sure I completely understand this situation... I know that the US has complete control over the DNS system (and unless everyone wants to use IP addresses, this basically means "the Internet"). But what is wrong with this? It seems that ICANN is very easy about registering domains to basically ANYONE who wants one. Everything seems to work the way it is. What would we gain by having this governed by the UN or some international body?

Please note that I am not in any way asking this rhetorically or to imply that the US should (or should not) have control. I'm just trying to see how such a move would benefit the Internet and it's users.

-Eric

Reply Score: 0

RE: Please clarify...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:12 UTC in reply to "Please clarify..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Oh, and if it's about the lack of address space allocated to certain countries (and overall lack of address space by IPv4), wouldn't IPv6 solve this problem and give everyone more than enough IP addresses??

-Eric

Reply Score: 0

ieee
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Giving up control to political body is unacceptable. How much installed based to many of these third world countries have anyway??? Most of the traffic is US and european. Giving the europeans more latitude would be a start. Ultimately giving control to some sort of technical organization like IEEE is the best solution in the long run.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ieee
by monkeyhead on Thu 20th Oct 2005 01:16 UTC in reply to "ieee"
monkeyhead Member since:
2005-07-11

Ultimately giving control to some sort of technical organization like IEEE is the best solution in the long run.

exactly... i could give a f--k who controls it as long as it isn't politicians. technical groups like the IEEE are much more reasonable than the childish antics of the worlds leaders. i also can't believe this comment went unnoticed in favor of the ridiculous 'America vs. The World' (tm) bullshit this thread consists of.

Reply Score: 1

good old days
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think this is a good thing in the long run. It's time for the US and US companies to stop raping the internet. Remember the good old days back when it was Darpa-net, when ICANN wasn't a group of control freaks. I can't wait for IPv6 to get standardized in the US, and for this ridiculous corporate/governmental control over the internet to cease.

Reply Score: 0

RE: good old days
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:25 UTC in reply to "good old days"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well I hope it does, but its euro asses that are slacking in that field as well as us lazy fat rude americans.

Reply Score: 0

RE: good old days
by rcsteiner on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:45 UTC in reply to "good old days"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

How exactly are US companies "raping the internet"...??

Examples, please... Even one would help.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: good old days
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE: good old days"
Anonymous Member since:
---

shh dont let the fact get in the way of their propaganda

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: good old days
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE: good old days"
Anonymous Member since:
---

One example:
Compare the cost of Broadband access in the US with other "1st world" countries.

Next example:
The control the multinationals have over US policy since they purchased the executive and legislative branches fair and square...

For the others on the planet who complain that they have no control over the US:

All you have to do is offer more money to purchase the US politicians than the multinational corporations do and they will do your bidding!!!

Next problem!

Reply Score: 0

WHAT IS GOING ON?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Again:

What is it that you currently are unable to do that you hope to gain by having the UN control ICANN?

is .xxx really a hotbutton issue for you that control must be "given" to the UN?

The countries who specifically are claiming to want "democratic control" of ICANN ARE THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY BAN THE WORD "DEMOCRACY" FROM THEIR OWN INTERNETS along with "freedom of religion" "tianeman square" and any other non-government sponsored political cause or unpopular religious group.

The US run ICANN does not block ANY unpopular politcal group or unpopular religious belief (remember hale bop?) no matter how rediculous or offensive--THAT is freedom.

China jails webbloggers who post non-government approved speech, like any information about Tianemen Square for example. But you want to give them control because you hate the U.S.A. and are trying to find ANY means to spite them.

think about the consenquences for just a moment when mainland china hires hackers to break into Taiwan's government and industrial computers to steal information. THE GOVERNMENT SPONSERS THAT ACTIVITY.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Please clarify...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:16 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Please note that I am not in any way asking this rhetorically or to imply that the US should (or should not) have control. I'm just trying to see how such a move would benefit the Internet and it's users.

It's the same as with monitoring email traffic to capture criminals. While not posing any real trouble to people, people will still be against it, because it infringes privacy.

The fact that the US, just a country, controls stuff that directly affect normal people around the world, without them having a say in it, is just wrong.

Before the disaster with the .xxx domain, I didn't give a damn about all this. While I couldn't give a rat's ass about this .xxx domain, the fact that the US government decided against it with political/religious reasoning is just unacceptable.

Now it's the .xxx domain, what will Bush & Gov. ban next?

Reply Score: 5

Sorry Rest of the world . . .
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

get over it. So what if a Brit invented HTML. It's not America's fault your countries governments don't know what to do with their own people's inventions. America is all about making money. Why? because we don't want ice to become a luxury. Because we want to drive SUVs through all this wide open country side. Maybe were a pompass nation, but maybe we are more out of defense than anything else. Why should we loose what we all worked so hard to acquire, whether it was ours to begin with or not.

Don't blame the United States because your countries won't let you buy domain names. Don't blame our government for your government's lack of vision. Oh and by the way, thanks for that linux thing, it's a lot of fun.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Sorry Rest of the world . . .
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:30 UTC in reply to "Sorry Rest of the world . . ."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well done, you summed up everything I hate about American attitude in one post.

Even if suddenly everybody in Britain bought a 4x4 and started driving everywhere for no reason it would mean squit against how much damage and waste America is doing every day. Don't worry, you'll reap what you sow.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Sorry Rest of the world . . .
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:24 UTC in reply to "Sorry Rest of the world . . ."
Anonymous Member since:
---

A " Brit did NOT invented HTML" a Britt INVENTED THE WORLD WIDE WEB" take the www away from the internet and what do you have?

The World Does NOT need the Internet. IPv6 and simple MPLS over Internet Protocol for Switched Everricular Optical Routing with statefull inspection engines will enable the world to create their own comunities in cyberspace without the need of the ancient slow and high latency crap that the internet is Today.(there is plenty of bandwith available cheap) then statefull inspection engines with IDS will block and drop all traffic from and to the USA in fact isolating it from the rest of humanity.

In case you are wondering what Internet Protocol for Switched Everricular Optical Routing is "It is a current traffic engineering Pending Patent written by 3 Canadians of which I am one of them" It is facing Oposition by the usa and the BIG TELCOS since it will effectivelly ruin them all allowing anyone with routing skills to add themselves to all MPLS communities or specific ones over a simple Layer 2 infra-structure. EGRP and CWFQ will then take care of the encapsulated Frame dis-assembled it and route it to the proper destination based of COS and QOS mechanism with preset policies.

Engineering Minds Over the world united to create modify and enhance the Internet Protocol and as a result G3 with VoIP and VCoIP have been in existance and working exceptionally in other countries and NON existant in the USA ...cheez I wonder why? since you are such a great wonderfull superpower of invention.

I say let the usa keep the internet let us implement out own worldnet and then keep them out of it. and lets see how many wars the good Ole USA is going to fight to assert control of the newly created Worlnet and then claim it as their own invention

BTW.. IPv6 is NOT a USA Invention so once it is implemented even across the existing infra-extructure the USA Looses Jurisdition.

Must be upseting to know that "That Linux Thing aint american is it? " (take a blood pressure pill or you may get a heart attack"

before you reply to this i sugest you read up on technology or go to school moronic replys will not be answered.

my CCIE CCSE IDSE BsC $0.02

Cheers

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Must be upseting to know that "That Linux Thing aint american is it? " (take a blood pressure pill or you may get a heart attack"

right and what exaclty is linux a copy of? oh yeah unix. dumbass

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Go back to school and please finish the second grade. linux it is NOT a copy of UNIX

do yourself a favour google for some guy named Linus Torvalds read up....then google for groklaw SCO vs IBM vs Red hat vs Novel vs Linux vs every open source developer in the world.. and read up some more (You do know how to read ...right )

well you will find enlightement.

your name calling is a direct reflection of the high level of education, decency, human manners, and principals you have keep it up. it is very amusing and entertaining to see posts like yours.

cheers

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

right, of course, linux is not a copy of unix. in fact even if there were no unix, linux would have magically appeared and created its own user permission system just like unix would have. its monolitic kernel would magically come to Linus in a dream. Seriously, go read a book or better yet, read the flame war on cpm.os.minix when linux was announced and you will see how much of a copy of unix it is.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Must be upseting to know that "That Linux Thing aint american is it? " (take a blood pressure pill or you may get a heart attack"

right and what exaclty is linux a copy of? oh yeah unix. dumbass


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

I'm pretty sure it was not a "copy" as you call it. It was designed to function like it, but the code was written from scratch. You may need to do some more research.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"BTW.. IPv6 is NOT a USA Invention so once it is implemented even across the existing infra-extructure the USA Looses Jurisdition...before you reply to this i sugest you read up on technology or go to school moronic replys will not be answered."

BTW!!! IPv6 was invented by Steve Deering and Craig Mudge at Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, California, USA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6

"In case you are wondering what Internet Protocol for Switched Everricular Optical Routing is "It is a current traffic engineering Pending Patent written by 3 Canadians of which I am one of them"

"In case you are wondering what Internet Protocol for Switched Everricular Optical Routing is "It is a current traffic engineering Pending Patent written by 3 Canadians of which I am one of them" It is facing Oposition by the usa and the BIG TELCOS since it will effectivelly ruin them all allowing anyone with routing skills to add themselves to all MPLS communities or specific ones over a simple Layer 2 infra-structure. EGRP and CWFQ will then take care of the encapsulated Frame dis-assembled it and route it to the proper destination based of COS and QOS mechanism with preset policies. " - Wrong, AT&T is using MPLS and IPv6

Some service providers, such as Sprint, are not using MPLS, while others, such as AT&T, are betting on the technology and using it throughout their data networks.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3649/is_200305/ai_n9279...

Who are you? Are we to believe that you are the inventor of IPv6 and MPLS? Inventor of switching optical routers? IPv6 over MPLS? MPLS over IPv6? Give more detail, AND give factual information!!!

Are you even checking for replies? Since you probably aren't watching this thread anymore, I guess this is a moronic reply serving little purpose, except to discredit you.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Ditto ;-) now go back some more and find out where I am from.........you'll find out I am Canadian.

cheers

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Must be upseting to know that "That Linux Thing aint american is it? " (take a blood pressure pill or you may get a heart attack"


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

Maybe the original statement that Linux was American was a bit off, but keep in mind, they may have meant that not really meaning just the kernel (which is useless without apps) - Linux. Look at GNU and GCC. That is more or less associated with the US due to UC/Berkeley. No?

In any case, what does it matter who invented what? This is open stuff that was graciously donated to the world, each by it's contributors. Why do you guys feel the need to try and establish national ownership of these gifts? Grow up.

Reply Score: 0

monkeyhead Member since:
2005-07-11

you are the type of idiot that makes me ashamed of being an american.

Reply Score: 1

Built in the US
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Ummmmm, I think the "we built it, if you want control, go and build your own" point is moot. It seems more like the US is being given a chance before other countries do go and build their own.

Yanking domain control is not such a huge thing. Just point the top level queries elsewhere. If different bodies start handing out overlapping IP ranges, that could be a mess. Talk about one way to speed IPv6 adaptation.

Come to think of it, with all the outsourcing, any future US contributions are likely to come from India anyway, so what's the big deal... *grin*

Reply Score: 0

RE: Built in the US
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:24 UTC in reply to "Built in the US"
Anonymous Member since:
---

ha ha yeah becasue there is a HUGE amount of RnD being done in India. Go look at which country spends the most in scientific research and take a look at any big US university.

Reply Score: 0

v humanism vs ignorance
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:32 UTC
...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>Most of the traffic is US and european.

And the asian traffic is non existant I guess?
What a joke really...
I really can't wait for the split if US governement continue this non sense.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:19 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"And the asian traffic is non existant I guess? "

That's correct to a considerable extent, most of their traffic gets lost in horrible packet loss:

http://www.internettrafficreport.com/main.htm

A good chunk of the rest is probably USA based SPAMMING operatings, grin. In short, many of the Asian networks need to clean their own acts up before fussing about others.

"What a joke really... "
Sorry if the truth hurts so bad.

"I really can't wait for the split if US governement continue this non sense."

Then I guess you best be glad we started the non-sense eh? How intellectually dishonest can you be to make that statement. The US will retain control till we see a better option out there. Even then, those that want to bitch about America will still not be happy, they are too miserable to ever give us credit for anything so why should we care about their opinions on something they wouldn't have today, in it's present form, if we hadn't built it to begin with.

THe joke is those that are bitching about America and Bush when their own laundry is pretty darn dirty too.


JT

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

>That's correct to a considerable extent, most of their traffic gets lost in horrible packet loss:

When you try to get a point, at least post something related.
Packet lost traffic != overall traffic.
So by your stupid ( yes it's stupid ) logic, south america traffic is more important than european and US one?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

And where in my reply did I say anyone's traffic is more important than the other? Nowhere. Just pointing out the condition of their network infrastructor. Guess that's the fault of USA?

Resort to name calling, you instantly loose the arguement and credibility.

Pretty clear from your other posts, no one is going to change your mind, you're only going to read into things that which already fits your agenda, so hate away, flame away, go for it, only hurting yourself being so negative. Again, get your own act together, get your government's act together, then maybe you'll have some credibility when you fuss about others.

I noticed you ignored the rest of my post, so have it again:

A good chunk of the rest is probably USA based SPAMMING operatings, grin. In short, many of the Asian networks need to clean their own acts up before fussing about others.

"What a joke really... "
Sorry if the truth hurts so bad.

"I really can't wait for the split if US governement continue this non sense."

Then I guess you best be glad we started the non-sense eh? How intellectually dishonest can you be to make that statement. The US will retain control till we see a better option out there. Even then, those that want to bitch about America will still not be happy, they are too miserable to ever give us credit for anything so why should we care about their opinions on something they wouldn't have today, in it's present form, if we hadn't built it to begin with.

THe joke is those that are bitching about America and Bush when their own laundry is pretty darn dirty too.


JT

Reply Score: 0

We don't want to control it ....
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

We don't want to control it. We just want to have our say in it tooo so that our language can be used in DNS names and us not having to run to the US Govt. to get IP addresses for our citizens. The Internet is being used to propergate a 'minimum English required' policy on others.

Eventually, like evrything else, the world will invent something else and move on to it.

Reply Score: 0

rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

If English is acceptable enough to be used as the common language between pilots and air traffic controllers in the airline industry, why couldn't it also be used to describe internet addresses?

Isn't such inconsistency hypocitical?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

not a valid argument. Everybody in the world is a potential intenet user, but very few are pilots or air traffic controllers.

Reply Score: 0

rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Hmmm. Good point. Too bad each country doesn't have its own DNS in its own language. Maybe that's the answer.

Reply Score: 1

Reason
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Gee here's a very good reason to not have the U.N. controlling the internet.
"As far back as 1999, U.N. agencies have mulled imposing taxes on Internet e-mail."

Reply Score: 0

Waaaaaah!
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"WE BUILT THE INTERNET WITH OUR TAXE MONEY, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!!!!!!!!"

Even if the UN offered some form of reinbursement you'd still find something to bitch about. Maybe how they want to infringe on your supposed freedom, or your freedom to play risk without a board.

I can't wait until the UN invasion.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Waaaaaah!
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:02 UTC in reply to "Waaaaaah! "
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Even if the UN offered some form of reinbursement you'd still find something to bitch about. Maybe how they want to infringe on your supposed freedom, or your freedom to play risk without a board.

I can't wait until the UN invasion."

Quite possibly the stupidest post ever.

Umm, where do you suppose the money in the UN's budget comes from? Since you seem so ignorant of this I'll tell you. It comes from the taxpayers of the member states, with the lion's share coming from the United States. So the UN giving us back our own money to buy control of the DNS system must be a pretty good deal for everybody (except the US).

And just where does this magical UN invading force of yours come from?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Waaaaaah!
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 02:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Waaaaaah! "
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ugh, the lions share does not come from the US. If I remember correctly, the US seems to have a problem paying their dues. But w/e.

Reply Score: 0

RE:US CONTROL OF THE INTERNET
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I hold a dual citizenship, Nigerian (37 years) and American (1 year) so I have an internationalist view of this non-issue.

This internet was created using research funds from the US defense department during the cold war to disperse and protect US data in the case of a nuclear attack. It has grown and prospered thanks mainly to the input of US capitalist corporations.

This invention was at a time when 2/3 of the world's population was betting on Socialism to overcome the US system. I was a student in Nigeria during this period and know first hand how Karl Marx was loved and how much the US was villified. Socialism imploded woefully and lost the argument. Now they want to smuggle it in through the back door of the UN. My response is: Go get a life you losers and create your own system.

With the flexibility and openness of DNS and TCP/IP nothing prevents any country from creating a parallel web and allowing or denying anyone they choose to share.

Reply Score: 4

Whine
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Processors that drive our PCs are Americans. Operation system that most of us use to drive our PCs is American. Linux, started by a Finn, but still essentially American.
Internet is American.

Maybe rest of the world should consertrate on innovating new things and stop whining?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Whine
by auwts on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:01 UTC in reply to "Whine"
auwts Member since:
2005-07-31

> Processors that drive our PCs are Americans.
True, the company's were started in the usa. But i bet they use alot of technology invented in the rest of the world.

> Linux, started by a Finn, but still essentially American.
LOL?


The truth is, that almost all products are using products invented in other places of the world.

I mean, you could also say that CD's were invented by Philips and Sony (respectivly dutch an japanes). So without those companies, you would still be installing your computer with floppies ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Whine
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:08 UTC in reply to "Whine"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Processors that drive our PCs are Americans. Operation system that most of us use to drive our PCs is American."

Yeap, the world would be better off without America eh?

"Linux, started by a Finn, but still essentially American."

And you notice what country he moved to the moment he got the chance to. America.

"Internet is American."

Another gift to to the world that catch spit in our faces if we attempt to keep any control of it's.

"Maybe rest of the world should consertrate on innovating new things and stop whining?"

Innovating takes effort, bitching about how horrible America is doesn't. Many of them can bitch about America, but don't dare cast that same critical eye on their own governments (yeah, in some countries they don't dare bitch about their own leaders, grin).

Come on folks, do you REALLY want the UN in control of the internet? Set your hate for Bush/America aside and be honest with yourselves. Didn't think so.


JT

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Whine
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Whine"
Anonymous Member since:
---

lets not forget that linux is a clone of unix (another american creation). no unix and there would be no linux to copy it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Whine
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Whine"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Linux started as a copy of Minux which is not US in origin; go by the book on Minux if you don't believe it...

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Whine
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Whine"
Anonymous Member since:
---

err no. read the flame war. Besides, what is minix a copy of? i'll give you a hint it begins with a U and ends in ix

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Whine
by somebody on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Whine"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Come on folks, do you REALLY want the UN in control of the internet? Set your hate for Bush/America aside and be honest with yourselves. Didn't think so.

Didn't think so? Well, then you're wrong

Reply Score: 1

RE: Whine
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:16 UTC in reply to "Whine"
Anonymous Member since:
---

That's just great.
Claim Linux as American, why don't you?
Hell, I guess every single large innovation ever existed is American, right?
Get a clue..
Linux is not American, it's internationally owned and produced, and it was invented by a Finn.

Sure, the internet was born in America, but most of the technologies actually used in _today's_ internet was _not_ born in America (html, www, and so on), and still American's seem to like to claim the entire internet as their's.. Why's that?

To me, it seems like the rest of the world have been, and still are, happily sharing their innovations with everyone else without limitations, while America tend to only let other's use their stuff but keep all ownership and control to themselves, even if the products have been improved upon by others.

Without the international contributions and innovations that build up todays internet, it would be nothing.

Sure, America could very well have made those things themselves, but they didn't as they already existed.
Same as the rest of the world could very well have made their own DNS system, etc, to be used with html, but they didn't as there already existed a system for it.

Co-operation should be a non-issue, but while the rest of the world seem fine with giving up control to key technologies all the time, the US seem unwilling to do the same.

my €0.02

Reply Score: 1

RE: Whine
by somebody on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:38 UTC in reply to "Whine"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Linux, started by a Finn, but still essentially American.

God, I'm starting to get worried. I sometimes write free software for Linux. As I get your comment, I will soon be proclaimed American citizen. Now, that would be a reason enough to stop writing free software for Linux. Anything but American citizen. Whip, me, hang me, do whatever you want just take away your American citizenship.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Whine
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Whine"
Anonymous Member since:
---

i think he means it is a copy of unix which is american

Reply Score: 0

Hate America eh?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Might want to ask yourselves what would happen if America suddenly ceased to exist. Be intellectually honest with yourself when you answer. THink your country/life has problems now, it wouldn't be any better without the USA.

We funded it, we built it, it's our baby is only 50% of it. Last thing the internet needs is to be under the control of the UN which is full of a bunch of dictators and folks that are little shy of terrorists themselves. We'd be just as well off letting China control it, read censor it.

No sense in bashing the US for SPAM. Not denying most if originates here. Lot of it is sent via servers in countries that seem to have no desire to control their own networks and are either intentionally or unintentionlly non-responsive to complaints. Got many countries in Europe, the former Soviet Union, China, Korea, and others that simply are pure "slums" of the internet.

Haven't read too many (if any) stories about foreign spammers being busted. Usually Americans or Brit's trying to clean up our networks. Maybe if other countries with slum networks would get their act together, form a international body that is more respectable than the joke the UN is, then maybe we might agree to relinquish control.

Stop bashing American's, it's intellectually dishonest when your own laundry isn't exactly bright white either. IF you think we're a problem, you best:

1. pull head out of sand.
2. open eyes.
3. get a clue
4. quit buying every Bush or American bashing article you read or biased opinion of your friends.
5. In short, learn to think for yourselves and stop swallowing propaganda because it fits your preconceived attitude.

Everytime there is a big problem in the world, who does everyone come crying to? Yeah. How's them apples.

For those already set to hate America and Americans, no outcome of this issue would of changed your minds now would it? Didn't think so. Hate away, only hurting yourselves and not changing a darn thing.


JT

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hate America eh?
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:13 UTC in reply to "Hate America eh?"
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

God, your post made me think of what my English teacher (who was a US citizen living in France) told us: there is a big conception in US that the rest of the world hate them, that the rest of the world is full of bad people who want to gain something from them.

I never thougth that was actually true....

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hate America eh?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Hate America eh?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"God, your post made me think of what my English teacher (who was a US citizen living in France) told us: there is a big conception in US that the rest of the world hate them, that the rest of the world is full of bad people who want to gain something from them.

I never thougth that was actually true...."


Read the comments on this article. Here, at least, everybody else DOES seem to hate us.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Hate America eh?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hate America eh?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Read the comments on this article. Here, at least, everybody else DOES seem to hate us.
--------------------------

But did you also read the posts from your fellow countrymen that actually gave a reason to hate you?

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Hate America eh?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hate America eh?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

did you read the comments that got his fellow country men to write such things? go to the one about how great Pearl harbor and 9/11 was. Add to that the fact that the post is about you demanding the US hand over something it created and you can see why we hate you.

The only thing we are saying is if you dont liek the way the net uis run, go start your own Euro net leave the net we use alone. why do you have to demand that we give over control of the internet to the UN or the EU. Of course you dont want your own net, you want us to bow to you. (which will never happen)

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Hate America eh?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hate America eh?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I can match the trolling comments with equal trolling comments from your side

I can match also equally intelligent comments why it isn't a wholly American creation and why no govt should have control, so your point is what exactly?

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Hate America eh?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hate America eh?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

my point is that the US made and runs the current DNS and IP systems . that is something that is not being disputed. if the EU, china, iran , lybia et al want to control their own networks, they shoudl start their own and leave the one that we are using alone.

I have not problem with the EU splitting off into a EU net. Taht is what we are saying you should do. What your side is demanding is that it be given control of the servers the US currently runs.

basically, you are not satisfied with your own toy, you want the toy we are playing with.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Hate America eh?
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hate America eh?"
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

I think it was a misunderstanding (if not, that's a stupid guy). What I understood from his post is : what did you US citizens learn from this fact ? What did it change in your way of dealing with international relationships ? From what we see in this article, nothing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Hate America eh?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hate America eh?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

this is the post that started the flame war

"
This is why you are the most hated country on the planet, i've seen comments like that come thick and fast.

I guess next you'll be saying you won WW2, after Japan gave you the biggest thrashing in your history on your own ground. learned yet?, no!, 9/11 still not a lesson? because they came over and showed you.
"


ignoring the claim that Japan won WW2 or the Perl Harbor was a just attack. if the part at the bottom does not seem jubliant we see things differently. Also keep in mind many americans know people who were killed on 9/11 since it was just 4 years ago.

If you went to France 1944 and say something similar about Germans and France and you might have gotten a similar response (or worse)

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Hate America eh?
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hate America eh?"
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

I've read almost every article. But I live in France, and we talked a lot about what we think of US citizens. Things are very different from what it seems. I have been really impressed with some US citizens, who have been the most cultivated persons I've met. I love the way you can react to bad events in your life and fight back to make it better. Believe me or not, but most of us really like US citizens, but we hate the arrogant ones (a small percentage that talks too much).

There is a problem of communication, that's for sure. And there are some cultural things I will never understand (patriotism for example). But never believe than the rest of the world hates you, that totally depends of who you personaly are.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hate America eh?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hate America eh?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"There is a problem of communication, that's for sure. And there are some cultural things I will never understand (patriotism for example)."

actually, i read the international new alot. remember the time Pepsi tried to buy a major stake in Orangina? do you remember the "patriotism" in france? how about the replacement of email with "courriel" (sp?) same thing. if anything the french out to undersnd that bit.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Hate America eh?
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hate America eh?"
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

I do remember that. You know, there are some thing I don't even understand in my own country ;)

Reply Score: 1

Bush cannot block .xxx TLD
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 13:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You know, the really interesting thing is that Bush et. all cannot block a .xxx TLD. Anyone care to hazzard a guess as to why?

The person that says a registrar that puts it up and gets several major DNS servers around the world to use it will eventually get everyone except the forbidden root servers to use it. It's really not that hard to set up with BIND or djbdns. Hell, alternic has been doing the same thing for years, they just never had recognition on a large scale.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: AMERICAN CONTROL OF THE INTERNET
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:03 UTC
Anonymous Member since:
---

so proud to be now american ;)
immigrants are worst citizens,
because they are so proud of themself

Reply Score: 0

Follow The Money
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Effectively, OS News has become Slashdot Lite. It's full of screaming Linux crybabies and true blue born-again American freedom fighters. Well, sorry guys. Windows and the the rest of the world exist.

I know this is flamebait, but I'm not in the mood to give a shit. America, like the Slashdot zealots, hasn't got a grip on where the limits are, and if a good thwack around the head is what they need, so be it.

What is it whith America and China? Every time I see issues of freedom and the internet, the zealots jump in. Personally, I think it's a great idea that the limits of what permissible should be examined.

Drawing on a British example, some wise guys thought they could whack up advertising down the side of motorways. Why? Oh, they do that in America, whine, whine, whine. That's America. This is here.

What's this moaning about Europe from the other British guy? Screw you. I remember when people were begging the European Union to intervene when Thatcher and her cronies were raping this country and ruining lives.

I'm pretty sick at how OS News has turned into such a steaming pile of shite, and how the internet has just become another vehicle for the dumb and the greedy. It would be nice if there is a shakedown. It's overdue.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Follow The Money
by rcsteiner on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:55 UTC in reply to "Follow The Money"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

I know this is flamebait, but I'm not in the mood to give a shit.

Apparently you "give a shit" enough to post here. :-)

Reply Score: 1

So let me get this ?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You mean a bunch of dictators and bureaucrats are complaining because the U.S. has dictatoral control over the internet ? You can't buy this kind of entertainment this is funny. People who crave power complaining the U.S. has to much control. Ha ha ha ha.

Reply Score: 0

RE: So let me get this ?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:33 UTC in reply to "So let me get this ?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"You mean a bunch of dictators and bureaucrats are complaining because the U.S. has dictatoral control over the internet ? You can't buy this kind of entertainment this is funny. People who crave power complaining the U.S. has to much control. Ha ha ha ha."

Best point I've seen yet!

Guess we need to put Al Gore in charge of the internet, then maybe they'd be happy. Not! Those fussing would fuss regardless, hatred, not logic guides them.

With all the Bush and anti-american'ism out there, I'll venture to say this topic will probably hold the all time record # of comments on OSNEWS, grin.


JT

Reply Score: 0

How do people get the argument so wrong?
by Stock on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:23 UTC
Stock
Member since:
2005-08-31

I just don't get how many people don't understand what is actually happening. It must be knee-jerk response. Most comments here are about the U.S. will not give the "Internet" away or about how ICANN submits to political pressure. What is really being suggested by the UN is that all nations have a say in the running of the infrastructure. The fact that the .xxx name was blocked by the U.S. gov shows that they mistakenly think the right has been granted to them to dictate policy to the world. A point of view Bush likes to use frequently. At the end of the day, no one outside the U.S. voted for Bush nor did they vote for the U.S.A. so what gives him the right to tell everyone else what to do. Nothing! That's what. I can't stand the UN personally but I have to back them on this because at least it represents more than just a single country run by a government with a belief that they are morally superior.

The argument isn't about taking control from ICANN, nor is it about letting "questionable nations" censor the Internet. The U.S. is being invited to participate in a globally controlled network. If they decline they will be the only ones who lose. Not only in technical terms of loss of functionality but in political terms for behaving like a spoiled brat. The rest of the world will still have access to U.S. sites but without cooperating the U.S. will find themselves unable to contact new parts of "the web".

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

Stock,

The root servers are in the US funded by US tax payer dollars. There is no global control. There is no invitation to some non-existant "global community of friendship."

How exactly would you enforce all pornographic websites to switch to .XXX? who is going to make that judgement on the billions of websites out there? The idea is not enforceable realistically.

"Questionable nations" are the ones who have proposed the UN control ICANN. If you believe there is no hidden agenda you're a fool.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Really? even the root server hosted in japan? or the one in the uk?

Reply Score: 1

Can't Let the UN have it...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The UN would say.. its not fair China has a problem we have to ban the word FREEDOM! ohhh.. and anything else that we don't like but its easy to ban, we hate owning up to our position but we have to play fair...

Reply Score: 0

sigh.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Another flamefest.

Well, here's my 2 cents.

Americans: If you cannot grasp the concept that without the rest of the world you are nothing, zilch, nada, you do nothing but spread the impression that all americans are major leage idiots that suck ass big time. Maybe someone among you invented this or that, who gives a rats as? To paraphrase Gallileo, yoy stood on the shoulders of gigants. What you did then was borrowing a shitload of money, which you are still doing this very minute, coherced/persuaded/took advantage of people in trouble some bright minds from abroad to work for you. (People like Werner Von Braun, and Einstein who essentially was war loot/refugees). The world is still waiting for repayment, unfortunately it seems you assholes seems intent on paying back in DRM, bad movies, wars and an arrogance that could put the nazis to shame.

Europeans: You should know better than arguing with shitheads.

Reply Score: 0

RE: sigh.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:00 UTC in reply to "sigh."
Anonymous Member since:
---

213.114.88.---
Explains a lot ;-)

"Americans: If you cannot grasp the concept that without the rest of the world you are nothing, zilch, nada, you do nothing but spread the impression that all americans are major leage idiots that suck ass big time."

And without us where would you be. The problem is folks like yourself can't bring yourself to admit that we need each other. You'd love to disassociate yourself from everything American, but you can't. It's a global economy, what's bad for America is usually bad for the rest of the world. Get over it.

"To paraphrase Gallileo, yoy stood on the shoulders of gigants."

I tend to think you got that one reversed. We built the foundation, US and others built on top of it to make it what it is today.

"The world is still waiting for repayment, unfortunately it seems you assholes seems intent on paying back in DRM, bad movies, wars and an arrogance that could put the nazis to shame."

Assholes eh? Like your comment there is so commendable eh? When you result to name calling, you instantly loose the arguement and any credibility. You can do better.

"paying back in DRM, bad movies,"
Stop buying them, we'll stop making them, grin. No arguement from me for DRM. No arguement that our hollywood sucks anymore (they too busy hating Bush to write a decent movie or be intellectually honest with themselves).

"wars and an arrogance that could put the nazis to shame"

If you honestly stand behind the Nazi comment, then you're sadly misguided, uninformed, and

Is Bush perfect? Nope.
Is America perfect? Nope.
Is your leader perfect? Nope
Is your country perfect? Nope
Will anything we say or do change your hatred? Nope
Do I need to go on? Nope

Do you see the pattern developing?

May I point you to the text of the song called "The American's" can be found about halfway down this page:

http://www.kjvuser.com/sept11.htm

How about we ALL learn to get along, forget Bush (he'll be gone soon then you'll have someone else to fuss about too), realize each others inperfections, be cautious of judging folks based on their leaders, respect countries that want to execise some control over things they built, and realize that we all need each other to some extent?

JT

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: sigh.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE: sigh."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Dear 216.68.163.--- :-)

I think you are misunderstanding a few of my points.

And without us where would you be. The problem is folks like yourself can't bring yourself to admit that we need each other. You'd love to disassociate yourself from everything American, but you can't. It's a global economy, what's bad for America is usually bad for the rest of the world. Get over it.

This is part of the thing I'm talking about.. where we would be without you? I don't know, but we would probably still be. What would the US be without the rest of the world? Indians in wigwams.

I tend to think you got that one reversed. We built the foundation, US and others built on top of it to make it what it is today.

No I didn't. Where would *you* be without Einstein, Newton, Gallileo, Archimedes, Pythagoras and so on. Talk about foundations.

Assholes eh? Like your comment there is so commendable eh? When you result to name calling, you instantly loose the arguement and any credibility. You can do better.

My comment was commendable? I have no idea, it's the truth though, and if it doesn't sit well with you it's probably an indication that it hits too close for comfort. The point I'm making is not that all americans are assholes, but rather that some of you are behaving extremely arrogant while a lot of things you claim to have "invented" and take such great pride in really couldn't have happened without others.

"paying back in DRM, bad movies,"
Stop buying them, we'll stop making them, grin. No arguement from me for DRM. No arguement that our hollywood sucks anymore (they too busy hating Bush to write a decent movie or be intellectually honest with themselves).


Well, those things were the first things to spring to my mind when I tried to think of what you guys have been exporting to the rest of the world lately. I'm sorry I forgot that the term "War" is no longer used but have been replaced with "Democracy".

"wars and an arrogance that could put the nazis to shame"

If you honestly stand behind the Nazi comment, then you're sadly misguided, uninformed, and


If you ever had the guts to look at your country without blinders you'd see that you are more and more turning into a police-state (do I need to mention the PATRIOT act?), the concentration camps are already in place (in guantanamo, iraq, afganistan etc.) as is the use of torture, either in places supposedly closed to the public eye (abu-graib) or by proxys (sending "suspects" to willing tormentors in Egypt and other places). So pray tell, if we exclude the deathcamps what are the differences? The arrogant über-mensch mentality certainly seems to be in place. At least the nazis had the decency not to pretend to be "defending the values of freedom and democracy".

Will anything we say or do change your hatred? Nope
Do I need to go on? Nope


Yeah, changing your behaviour is such a pain, it's much easier to proclaim your oponent to be rabid and full of hatred. Look closely in the mirror and I'm pretty sure you'll find the demon you are trying to picture me as.

How about we ALL learn to get along, forget Bush

First sensible thing you've written so far, too bad this isn't about Bush. However, he's just the symptom of the disease.

be cautious of judging folks based on their leaders, respect countries that want to execise some control over things they built

But you didn't. You created something initial, using a lot of old stuff comming from all over the world, and mixed it with a lot of good thinking. But you can't claim with a straight face that arpanet was much like the Internet.. And finally, what the people elects as their leader reflects back on it in a democracy. You know, someone voted for that shithead..

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: sigh.
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 02:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sigh."
Anonymous Member since:
---

If you ever had the guts to look at your country without blinders you'd see that you are more and more turning into a police-state (do I need to mention the PATRIOT act?), the concentration camps are already in place (in guantanamo, iraq, afganistan etc.) as is the use of torture, either in places supposedly closed to the public eye (abu-graib) or by proxys (sending "suspects" to willing tormentors in Egypt and other places). So pray tell, if we exclude the deathcamps what are the differences? The arrogant über-mensch mentality certainly seems to be in place. At least the nazis had the decency not to pretend to be "defending the values of freedom and democracy".


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

Now I have to say it...you are a MORON. I like this statement by you: "if we exclude the deathcamps".

Heh, how silly you are. We'll just white-wash the one event in history that is well documented and resulted in the death of 6 million INNOCENT people.

How the heck can you exclude this? Maybe exclude what happened to the 2 million Armenians in Turkey as well?


"Your honor, if you exclude all those murders, the German army were really swell people, much better than those blood thirsty Americans of today."

You, too, are a bit out of whack. Good luck.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[4]: sigh.
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 03:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: sigh."
RE[4]: sigh.
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: sigh."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I'm afraid you are the moron around here, since you seem to be utterly unable to read and comprehend what I wrote.

1. I'm not talking about death-camps, I'm talking about attitude, laws and society.

2. The nazis were in power for 9 years before the decision about the "Final Soloution" was made, so why shouldn't the comparison apply? The übermensch mentality, propaganda, agressiveness, international debt, reliance on military power is there. The laws regarding suspected opositionals are frightingly similar (secret evidence, closed courts and death penalty, familiar?) as is the general contempt for human rights. In fact there are more matches than mismatches.

3. If you are too brainwashed by Goebbles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFox News too see the similarities between nazi-germany and the us of today nothing can help you I'm afraid. I'm not saying you are quite there yet, but you are headed in that direction and the laws needed for it are already made. it's just a matter of how they are used as things are now.

If you fail to see this, it's not because the evidence isn't there, but because you are in denial.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: sigh.
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: sigh."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I'm afraid you are the moron around here, since you seem to be utterly unable to read and comprehend what I wrote.

1. I'm not talking about death-camps, I'm talking about attitude, laws and society.

2. The nazis were in power for 9 years before the decision about the "Final Soloution" was made, so why shouldn't the comparison apply? The übermensch mentality, propaganda, agressiveness, international debt, reliance on military power is there. The laws regarding suspected opositionals are frightingly similar (secret evidence, closed courts and death penalty, familiar?) as is the general contempt for human rights. In fact there are more matches than mismatches.

3. If you are too brainwashed by Goebbles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFox News too see the similarities between nazi-germany and the us of today nothing can help you I'm afraid. I'm not saying you are quite there yet, but you are headed in that direction and the laws needed for it are already made. it's just a matter of how they are used as things are now.

If you fail to see this, it's not because the evidence isn't there, but because you are in denial.


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

You did include the deathcamps when you said to exclude them. I comprehended what you wrote and responded to it based on the fact that I thought your argument which asked to exclude the EVENT was rediculous. You may think I didn't understand, but this is how it came across to me. Try writing in a more clear style next time.

Reply Score: 0

That's how Bush got elected ...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Reading nonsense by some people here give me an idea on how Bush got elected (well, besides fraud).

There is a beautiful world outside of the cnn screen. I am so glad I met a lot of wonderful people from the USA travelling that had intelligent things to say. Not everyone has a flag and whine that all the world is jalous or hates you. Newsflash: most people in the world don't even care about you. Whatever cnn says.

C.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Thanks! We're not all entitled protectionist idiots.

Reply Score: 0

Uniters not Dividers
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Personally I think the Internet was intended to be beyond any single government's control.

So I can't believe what I'm hearing from fellow Americans, bashing the UN. Hello? We created the UN! We brought these countries together to encourage working together to resolve our differences.

Then we claim the Internet is ours and tell others to go make their own? Hello again! What do you think would happen if every country made their own networks and blocked the US from them?

There would be no Internet, it would be the Intranets!

Reply Score: 1

US v UN
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why do you think the US is so against any form of UN control? Because the UN allows others to have a say instead of organisations such as NATO who all just bend over and let the US do what they want and say yes sir, no sir three bags full sir.
Freedom? more like a dictatorship.
The US created the internet. Yes. But a briton, working for a European organisation created the world wide web. Which sort of makes the internet failrly useful.
Sorry, but time for the US to grow up. The internet is a worldwide entity. So should it's 'governing' body. How I hate nationalism.

Reply Score: 0

You're right
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Yep yep, there will be the US internet and an internet for the rest of the world. So please go make your own. . I don't want you using it anyways. It's ours, we made it, you can go make your own. And yes, I don't care what you think, y'all are just a bunch of wanna be's. You have no right to use our internet, it's your privilege. Not your right. Feel happy that we are so generous. Don't get me started on the statistics. You can pull up a lot of crap on the US, but I can pull up even more good stuff, (but you'll still ignore it because you are so frustrated at the US's success). And this coming from someone who didn't even grow up in the US.

Reply Score: 0

RE: You're right
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:49 UTC in reply to "You're right"
Anonymous Member since:
---

'And this coming from someone who didn't even grow up in the US.'

Yes, but you always find the converts the most bigoted.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: You're right
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 01:43 UTC in reply to "RE: You're right"
Anonymous Member since:
---

>>And this coming from someone who didn't even grow up in the US.'

>>Yes, but you always find the converts the most bigoted.

Yes, this is because converts DECIDED to convert. They have seen what others have not, and are in a better position to state an opinion based on their experiences.

Reply Score: 0

US control
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Does this mean if we give the UN rights to control the internet we lose 95% of spam that actually comes from the US? It's a known fact that 95% of spam comes from one place in the US.

The first posted comment was right though, US sites, forums dont like anyone but americans telling them they are wrong, especially when it comes to WW2 and history in general. No wonder they are the most hated country on the planet at the moment, I dont hate the US, they just have their head up there arse STILL (even after 9/11)

Reply Score: 0

But of crying little brats.........
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

1. The Internet was invented by the US Armed Forces.
2. There are currently no problems with how the Internet is being run by ICANN.
3. The UN is a piece of sh*t organization and I wish we'd kick them out of the US and withdraw. There is no point to the UN. They are corrupted, and serve zero purpose in this world other than to make little countries feel better about themselves.

You whinny little cry babies need to get over it. The Internet BELONGS to the US. Just because other countries invested their economy so heavily on a foreign infrastructure does NOT give you any right to any partial ownership of it.

If you don't like it, then create your own Internet. I don't shop online on websites overseas or outside of the US. I could care less if I couldn't access some blog that's hosted over in some third world country.

The Internet belongs to the US. Get over it.

Reply Score: 0

Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 14:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

'I wouldn't have mentioned it, but your lame Euro ass opened the door.'

Aahh insults, the last resort of the mental cripple.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 01:47 UTC in reply to "Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

'I wouldn't have mentioned it, but your lame Euro ass opened the door.'

Aahh insults, the last resort of the mental cripple.

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

Out your hairry arse...


--Dan Quayle

(google for mental cripple...quayle is second ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Now you knowQ
by jaygade on Thu 20th Oct 2005 03:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Now you knowQ"
jaygade Member since:
2005-06-29

Out your hairry arse...


--Dan Quayle

(google for mental cripple...quayle is second ;)


Actually a post about Barbara Boxer came up second in my Google search...

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Being from the USA, I think that putting the domain registry into the control of an international body is just a fine idea, presuming that body was prepared for the task. I don't think the UN is so prepared.

The UN has its upsides and downsides (and for USA "neocons" that naysay it, let us not forgot the UN is a beast of our own creation), it is unquestionably a political bureaucracy fraught with pettiness, corruption, and incompetence (like any such body -- the Bush administration is another good example).

It's not going to do ANYONE (USA or otherwise) any favors to simply toss the job from one cage of baboons to another. We have examples of international unions and congresses that manage things like this (postal systems, even ITU -- though it's had issues) that work, and a number of good proposals for alternatives.

None of our governments want to play ball, but we the people do have an agenda: something that's fair and works for everyone. If we could get the politicos to swallow their pride and form a union outside the influence of politics and big business (to the extent that's even possible), we could have our cake and eat it too.

As a pragmatist, however, I think we're looking at near-term balkanization of the Internet that will result in public and commercial outcry. Ultimately both business and the general public will develop a new structure and business will use government to mandate use of their solution for profit and to screw the consumer on a global scale. Of course, that's just my take on the subject.

Reply Score: 0

probably been said already...
by SeanVernell on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:00 UTC
SeanVernell
Member since:
2005-08-06

Forgive if I am repeating a point people have already made - there are a lot of posts here and I have only read about a quarter of them. I think throwing in nationalism, whether in the guise of Americanism or the "anti yankee" sentiments that one or two people might be tempted to make is a red herring. The issue is not about the American nation but the American state. If the internet was created or controlled by Britain, my sentiments - as British myself, would the same - that no particular state should have sole control over (forgive me for putting it so crudely) the internet. One can drag out the "its ours we own it" argument if you wish but the matter is, you do not. If the US state had a change of heart tommorow and argued in favour of a UN body, the average American 'net users influence over events in that direction would be precisely nil. It would be for me if we were talking about Britain instead. So that argument strikes me as a non starter. It is as many have pointed out an international phenemoneon and one too important to be left in the hands of vote mongers, whatever country they happen to be. And may I add that I believe that the current situtaion is no better for American citizens than it is for any other country. But as to the person who argued that the UN wouldn't necessarily do a better job, I am inclined to agree with you. Its a complex issue and not one solved by chest beating and blustering.

Reply Score: 1

Step back
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I would suggest that 95% of you need to step back and look at what any change to the authority of DNS names will have on your Internet experience and any benefits it might/might not bring.

Drop your US/Europe/... issues and look at the issue if it was just several companies in your country. 1 has control and the others what in; what is to gain? how is this better?

Reply Score: 0

v Hey European Pansies!
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:06 UTC
RE: Hey European Pansies!
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:19 UTC in reply to "Hey European Pansies!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

This is why you are the most hated country on the planet, i've seen comments like that come thick and fast.

I guess next you'll be saying you won WW2, after Japan gave you the biggest thrashing in your history on your own ground. learned yet?, no!, 9/11 still not a lesson? because they came over and showed you.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Hey European Pansies!
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey European Pansies!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

But, you are a bunch of pansies. Your jealousy over the US is rather amazing. That's why the UN was invented in the first place - so little countries like yours could feel important.

Yes, we did win WWII. We saved all of Europe's sorry ass in the process. They showed us on 9/11? They showed us what cowards they are by attacking CIVILIANS. Their sorry asses are on the run right now too. If you think terrorism is just something the US has to worry about, then you're even dumber than I orignally though.

Screw the UN and screw the EU.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Hey European Pansies!
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hey European Pansies!"
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

It's kind of funny how ignorant some (not alla of course) US trollers are here... What is the link between Europe and 9/11 ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hey European Pansies!
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hey European Pansies!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

i think this was in reply to a Euro weenie who was talking about how pearl harbor and 9/11 were great events becasue the us was "thrashed"

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Hey European Pansies!
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hey European Pansies!"
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

I haven't read the same thing. He said they were lessons to learn from this event. As far as I can see, that hasn't been the case.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hey European Pansies!
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey European Pansies!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

is it not true? you europeans would kill youselves many times over if it werent for us. thats probably the most promient reason why you shouldnt control anything.

I like the part about 9/11 i really hoping to see paris burn to hell (again) so i can laugh

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Hey European Pansies!
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hey European Pansies!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I like the part about 9/11 i really hoping to see paris burn to hell (again) so i can laugh

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

Dude, not only is this not funny, but it makes no sense. The ony ones laughing will be the weirdo terrorists who think they are getting something for blowing themselves and innocents up.

Basically, quit being ignorant, it's insulting.

It's hard enough for us to get along as it is, we don't need this to upset all those on these forums who get fired up by reading the boards...

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Hey European Pansies!
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey European Pansies!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Hate to break it to you, but our pacific fleet being the only real threat to Japan's dedire to expand their empire throughout the pacific was the reason for them bombing Pearl Harbor. Nothing more.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Hey European Pansies!
by rcsteiner on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey European Pansies!"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

I guess next you'll be saying you won WW2, after Japan gave you the biggest thrashing in your history on your own ground.

The Japanese launched a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor without having done the courtesy of formally declaring war first, and you glorify such an action?

Besides, one battle does not a war make. While they did put up a fight, Japan was not the victor.

9/11 still not a lesson? because they came over and showed you.

9/11 was a cowardly act. The deliberate targetting of civilians is completely unacceptable regardless of the desired goals.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hey European Pansies!
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hey European Pansies!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Don't even bother, he's a European. As long as americans die, it's all good. Don't point out that we won WW2, let him think Pearl Harbor was the entire war(as you said actually happened before the war formally started, but those are only facts) we can all laugh at him.

as for his comments on 9//1 being a good thing. let's let that stand on its own too. We've always known what side the citizens of the EU are on.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[3]: Hey European Pansies!
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hey European Pansies!"
RE[4]: Score -1
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hey European Pansies!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Hey European Pansies!
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 02:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey European Pansies!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

This is why you are the most hated country on the planet, i've seen comments like that come thick and fast.

I guess next you'll be saying you won WW2, after Japan gave you the biggest thrashing in your history on your own ground. learned yet?, no!, 9/11 still not a lesson? because they came over and showed you.

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

You seem proud of this, as if you had some part in it. I'd say it would be great if all foreigners stayed in their friggin country, but do they? Noo...

Look, people come to the US (and other countries, of course) cause they want to. There must be something missing where they were from.

Me, both my parents came from Europe in the early 70's. I'm 1/2 Greek, and 1/2 German. For as much as all you people who think they know everything hate the USA, I can see why there were 2 world wars in Europe in a short time. So much hate.

Obviously, the opinions being spouted here are not necessarily the views of the entire population of any one place, so stop behaving as if it were. This goes to those that say "this is why americans are hated", etc.

If you want to hate, then go ahead. It's dangerous, and not healthy for you.

You don't know all Americans. Maybe you hate the politicians in the US or some of the people you consider rude, but there are great people in the USA (and your country, too).

I'm glad I'm in the US and I take the bad with the good. It's never all good. Try to do something constructive to make it better.

Peace, my brothers and sisters (and especially the sisters ;)

Reply Score: 0

Welcome to US?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Poor discussion, I stopped after the fifth post.

Reply Score: 0

Why not a xxx web??
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I wish there were a .xxx web for porn. Along with this, I would hope that a web browser was created so that you could password setup the browser so that it could reject all .xxx sites. If this were available, I could rest easier when my kids surf the web.

I do use Safari and have set it up so that my kids can only go to web sites I have allowed but many times they have school projects that require them to surf the web. I once saw one of my kids look up info for ML King and the result list had a porn link in it. There is no eff'n reason for this. Give us a .xxx web and put alll of the porn on it and then let us have a browser that can be setup to reject all .xxx sites.

- Mark

Reply Score: 0

RE: Why not a xxx web??
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:41 UTC in reply to "Why not a xxx web??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I wish there were a .xxx web for porn. Along with this, I would hope that a web browser was created so that you could password setup the browser so that it could reject all .xxx sites. If this were available, I could rest easier when my kids surf the web. "

I agree. This is one part of our (US) objections that started all this mess that I don't agree with 100%

I can see the arguements against a TLD of .xxx

1. If you don't enforce (and get compliance) that all porn sites use that TLD, then it's usefullness for filtering becomes limited from the get go. Many porn site ops are not exactly the most law abiding folks to begin with.

2. If .xxx is allowed, then what's next? .terror (.ter)

3. If you acknowledge something bad like porn with TLD, then maybe the fear is you lend it more credibility or acceptance. (weak, I admit).

Cuts both ways.

Kind of like the spam issue. Yeah most of it comes from the US, but most of it is routed off foreign servers in countries that have poorly controlled networks and non-responsive to complaints.

Let's face it, it's actually a pretty complicated issue when you get right down to it.

For the record I'm all for a international body to control the internet. I just don't think the UN is the solution on their best day. Frankly the less government involvement in the internet, probably the better...regardless of who the government is.

ICANN/ARIN (and others) are far from perfect, but hey what we've got works (for the most part) and we need to be careful in dealing with this issue or we could easily make things worse.

For those fussing about control, every country has their own TLD (.us, .de, .au, so on) you can always subdomain as you wish and your registrar's will allow. A lot of the problems I hear mentioned have nothing to do with American control of the TLD's, issues that need to be taken up with other parties.

Who cares about who's in control, let's do what's best for the majority of users and the technology. Far too much of these comments (not yours) are based upon nationalistic egos, hatred, and assumptions about other countries (often incorrect assumptions) versus the technology and layout as it exists today.

JT

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Why not a xxx web??
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Why not a xxx web??"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Who says porn is bad?

I agree it's bad from a moral point of view, but legally it's no worse than training people to use guns to kill terrorists, nor is it worse than selling a buggy OS and forcing hardware sellers to include said OS with it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why not a xxx web??
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not a xxx web??"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I agree it's bad from a moral point of view, but legally it's no worse than training people to use guns to kill terrorists, nor is it worse than selling a buggy OS and forcing hardware sellers to include said OS with it

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

All OS's are buggy. I'm assuming you mean the evil American MS OS. Why is it that everyone is hating MS for being successful? I think that is the root of the problem, that most of us like underdogs and hate the top dog. Hey, listen up, go make your own company and do what you like. Nobody forces you to buy a Dell with WIndows installed. Get one of them thar Chineze pc's with red blood linux or tiennamen square linux or whatever if you think that is better. Plenty of choices. Vote with your pocketbook and not your flapper.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Why not a xxx web??
by ma_d on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:31 UTC in reply to "Why not a xxx web??"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

You sir, are why the web can't have governmental control. You would sacrifice freedom, of everyone, for the safety, of your children.

Everyone please read what he's saying. Read between the lines, what it actually means: The Government should restrict all pornographic material to .xxx. Sounds nice huh? You try and decide what's pornographic and what's not? You try and actually find non-.xxx sites with porn. And here's the tough one, you set the punishment for not following the rules for freedom of speech.
I'll tell you, the punishment for speaking in a restricted zone without the proper paperwork is a slap on the wrist (as it should be). If you use that sort of punishment on porn sites, you won't even slow them down; you'll simply provide them free advertising on the 10:00 news.

Reply Score: 1

crux of the issue
by Bitterman on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:17 UTC
Bitterman
Member since:
2005-07-06

The main point is... why? Is there something wrong with the current system other than other countries have to remember the US is still around?

The only reason to hand this to the UN would be so they can vote to kick us out. There really is no practical reason It's just a power play by the UN. End of story.

Reply Score: 1

lol...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>Nowhere. Just pointing out the condition of their >network infrastructor. Guess that's the fault of USA?

>Resort to name calling, you instantly loose the >arguement and credibility.


What argument? The simple fact that only about 30% of the www is in english?
There is a world outside the US.
And really, the world won't miss the "US internet" if there is ( and I hope ) a split.

Reply Score: 0

RE: lol...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:40 UTC in reply to "lol..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

right and WWW != internet. there is a lot more to the internet than web pages. (go read a book)

Reply Score: 0

RE: lol...
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 02:11 UTC in reply to "lol..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

What argument? The simple fact that only about 30% of the www is in english?
There is a world outside the US.
And really, the world won't miss the "US internet" if there is ( and I hope ) a split.


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

Clearly, you already know what the ramifications would be due to a "split", and you have decided it will be to your favor. Can you also guess for me the lotto numbers?

You seem to be somewhat unstable, my friend.

Reply Score: 0

Depressing
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

As an American, I am depressed by what some of my fellow Americans have to say.

We live in a small world these days, and globalization is making it smaller by the day. The time has come for us to stop being the schoolyard bully and step up to the plate as a real world leader; that is, by leading, by building consensus and compromise, by working with all nations to recognize their importance in the overall global village in which we live.

All of this stuff about what was invented where or by whom is irrelevant. We need to look at the situation as it exists now.

I am not suggesting the UN is proper place for this matter. One look at the headlines shows you that the UN is just as broken as our current administration is. However, I do think that an international technical body of some sort should be created to manage this matter.

To my fellow Americans: stop coming across as arrogant bastards. We have things to learn from our fellow human beings around the world. The world does not revolve around the US. We are not perfect and we are not always right.

To other folks: America is not all bad. We have done and continue to do good things in this world. We really do try to do the right thing most of the time. We are not always wrong.

Charles

Reply Score: 3

MR CANADIAN CCIE
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---


"It is a current traffic engineering Pending Patent written by 3 Canadians of which I am one of them" It is facing Oposition by the usa and the BIG TELCOS since it will effectivelly ruin them all allowing anyone with routing skills to add themselves to all MPLS communities or specific ones over a simple Layer 2


Why don't you patent it in your own country and charge us money if we apply to use it. On this issue of the internet we don't want your friendship, we don't want your co-operation and don't force it on us. Form you own web and keep us out and stop whining.

Reply Score: 0

RE: MR CANADIAN CCIE
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:22 UTC in reply to "MR CANADIAN CCIE"
Anonymous Member since:
---

3 trillion in debt !!! you cant afford it and the us dollar will have to be converted to the new international currency the euro (heck pretty soon the mexican peso will do better)

Our frienship is wellcome and valued all over the world
our cooperation is wellcome and in high demand all over the world
We are well regarded and liked all over the world

we dont care nor need your internet
we dont force nothing upon no-one we are free and peacefull and have a policy of non-interference respect , and non dominance in the affairs of other nations and that is the essence of our Nation being wellcome and well regarded all over the world.

can you say the same for yours?

You are a moroon

cheers

Reply Score: 0

US Vrs UN
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 15:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I remeber a similar situation with the GPS satalites.
The ESA (Europien Space agency) wanted to launch thier own higher resoultion GSP system not so long agao as the US one is intenetionaly poor resolution (accuracy) for publc use. (I also beleve they were turning it off and on and changing the resolution at one time) the US did all they could to block this and remain in control of a system that is relied on by billions every day instead of letting the ESA launch a better system that was not owned by one group.

Reply Score: 0

RE: US Vrs UN
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:05 UTC in reply to "US Vrs UN"
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

I was thinking about the same project. Now It is launched, is called GALILEO and it will be nice !

Reply Score: 1

RE: US Vrs UN
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:21 UTC in reply to "US Vrs UN"
Anonymous Member since:
---

no they were trying to use a signal on the same frequency so the US could not jam it woutout jamming GPS. That's a pretty hostile intent right there.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: US Vrs UN
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE: US Vrs UN"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"no they were trying to use a signal on the same frequency so the US could not jam it woutout jamming GPS. That's a pretty hostile intent right there."

My friend you have a very odd view on hostility. You can't shoot me without shooting yourself, and that makes *me* hostile?

Reply Score: 0

RE: US Vrs UN
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:02 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I remeber a similar situation with the GPS satalites.
The ESA (Europien Space agency) wanted to launch thier own higher resoultion GSP system not so long agao as the US one is intenetionaly poor resolution (accuracy) for publc use. (I also beleve they were turning it off and on and changing the resolution at one time) the US did all they could to block this and remain in control of a system that is relied on by billions every day instead of letting the ESA launch a better system that was not owned by one group.


Luckily the European equiv. to GPS is in the works, it hasn't been canceled.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: US Vrs UN
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE: US Vrs UN"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Sponsored by China, can't wait for China to drop "China GPS equivalent guided bombs" on you for not outsourcing fast enough.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: US Vrs UN
by Gryzor on Thu 20th Oct 2005 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: US Vrs UN"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

Sponsored by China, can't wait for China to drop "China GPS equivalent guided bombs" on you for not outsourcing fast enough.

Quit crying paranoic yankee... not everyone wants to bomb your precious land. The fact that you mess with the wrong people make you a nice target. Stop building V12 Engines with four wheel traction just to go to/from the office, therefore, consuming less petrol/fuel, so your -already low- reserves don't fall short; that way, you won't have to invade a Petroleum Rich country every so and there "for the fake of freedom".

If you are SO afraid of the rest of the world, go somewhere else. In the end, we came to this world before. You see? Both parties happy. You could use Mars. The flag colour will even match with the land.

The US of Mars. Lovely. We'll spare some of the earth air, don't worry. But get your Unix engineers, creators of Internet to build a "Terrarformer" quick, or you'll run out of resources pretty fast.

We can use a Fast T3 Link to connect US of Mars with Earth. Not the best but... oh and take the GPS network with you, you may need it in the new world, since there aren't many maps, you know.

Reply Score: 2

666
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Yes, keep the U.N out of it, they mess way to much up and they aren't the world power that everyone has to bow down too.

Next the U.N will want to issue us the 666 to buy and sell.

Reply Score: 0

If it isn't broken why fix it?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Someone? ANyone?why does it need to be changed,not one argument here as to WHY it should be changed.

From an "Arrogant American" lol

Reply Score: 0

RE: If it isn't broken why fix it?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:20 UTC in reply to "If it isn't broken why fix it?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

There's one simple reason they are wanting to change:

MONEY

The corrupted nations in the UN and in the EU want to start levying tax on the internet (email, etc..). That is why they are wanting to change it.

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Because USA is abusing it's control as could be seen from the .xxx story.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

So you have one incident,and you think that makes a pattern of abuse? LOL

Reply Score: 0

the truth
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:28 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

Suggestions that have been made include new mandates for "consumer protection," the power to levy taxes on domain names to pay for "universal access," and folding ICANN into the International Telecommunications Union, a U.N. agency. As far back as 1999, U.N. agencies have mulled imposing taxes on Internet e-mail.

The only reason they want control...to tax people more.

Reply Score: 1

Whether you love the US or hate the US...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

what nobody has really answered is 'What is wrong with the way the internet is currently run'? The whole idea of the internet being a "world resource" creates great sound bites and quotes in local papers but in reality means, well, nothing. Oil is a "world resource" too. Why aren't all these countries getting their panties in a bunch over the fact that they have no control of oil? I could see if the US was denying countries access or whatever, but they are not. This is a power grab pure and simple. If China has a say, do you not think they are going to censor info they don't agree with? Then you will all be bitching about China censoring the internet. Or Iran, or North Korea. Hell, North Korea doesn't even allow it's citizens access to the internet. This is all about money (UN) and censorship (look at the countries leading the charge) If and when the US begins to undermine other countries by means of holding the internet 'hostage', then I think someone needs to intervene. Until then, I am happy with things just the way they are. just my 2 cents

Reply Score: 0

Re: if it is not broken
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Go back 20 years. When President Reagan wanted to put Pershing missiles in West Germany, spineless European elites like the ones posting on this site raised hell and called Reagan a dumb cowboy.They wanted "co-operation" with their beloved Soviet Union and refused to buy any arguments that the Soviets only understood the language of power. I wonder who won that argument.The internet was an American invention. To hell with your "co-operation". Build your own system and keep the Americans out if you must.
And by the way I am African.

Reply Score: 0

Impeach Bush
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

enough said...

Reply Score: 0

Omega Supreme
Member since:
2005-07-11

The idea that the US has the right to control the internet because it's theirs is plain short sighted.

The internet is nothing more than a collection of interconnected networks standardized on a common protocol. Saying the US owns it or should control it is saying the samething as the US should own and control my homenetwork wich is, after all, a part of the internet.

True, DARPA started it all. Then Universities across the globe connected their networks to the DARPA network, thus extending it. The DNS facilities were controled and managed by the US, but not the networks connected. Here in the Netherlands for example there is SURFnet for the universities. It's part of the internet and funded by the dutch not the US. What if they wanted a new top level domain for their network and the US didn't like it.

Right now it can't happen, why not? Because SURFnet could set up their own DNS root servers, but that would make their network a seperate one from the internet. Over time more parties could join them using their DNS servers because they like their conditions better. We could end up with two internets, which would need gateways to communicate. This is in nobody's interest.

To prevent this from happening control of the root servers could be relinquished to an international organization. Which can take care of international needs instead of US sensitivities. This would cost the US nothing, if anything it would save money, because they're no longer maintaining all the root DNS servers.

Now please do not give control to the UN they are a bunch of bureaucratic money wasters. Even worse they're about the most indecisive bunch of bureaucrats around. They are the kind people who decide we should stop a genocide after everyone is already dead, beacuase they can't agree on the wording.

What ever orginasation controles te internet needs a democratic system without veto's. The only veto should be the example above of starting your own network. This will ensure that only the gravest concerns and mismanagement makes the internet split.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

that is that the US supporters have been saying here. You have the "veto " of starting your own network, go use it.

Reply Score: 0

Omega Supreme Member since:
2005-07-11

"that is that the US supporters have been saying here. You have the "veto " of starting your own network, go use it."

My point against it? It would be inconvenient, to say the least. A duplication of efforts. And if there is a big split, commercial intersts will make sure that after a while the networks merge effectively establishing international control. Would you like that? I don't, I dislike that as much as the US telling me what is proper and what not.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

"What ever orginasation controles te internet needs a democratic system without veto's. The only veto should be the example above of starting your own network. This will ensure that only the gravest concerns and mismanagement makes the internet split."

Aside from the *.xxx" issue, sounds like you are describing the current management.

I think the whole UN-US issue comes across as a power grab. Who is really driving this issue? The free world? Or coutries such as China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Senegal and many other African countries?

Live free or die!

Reply Score: 0

Omega Supreme Member since:
2005-07-11

"Aside from the *.xxx" issue, sounds like you are describing the current management."

In a way I am, but right now the "governing body" caters only for US interests on an international medium. The whole internet is subject to the whims of the current US administration. Even americans know this, as the comment was already made to wait for the next president, by an american.

If some international organization "governs" it would cater for the needs of the international community. Which as a whole is a lot more stable then the US political climate. That's the disadvantage of essentially a two party system.

This may mean that the US doesn't get what it wants all the time. Like to use a popular example here the .xxx toplevel thrown out. But that's current US politics imposed on the world. Which is what sets me off. I couldn't care less about those idiot countries. Perhaps something like the US first amendment should be incorporated in a new controling body. Not in my opinion an unfair requirement if the US were to demand this in exchange for relinquishing control.

Anyway the issue remains that Europe has to much interest in the internet to not have influence and a say in how its run. no matter if you Yanks and Rednecks like it or not.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

If some international organization "governs" it would cater for the needs of the international community. Which as a whole is a lot more stable then the US political climate. That's the disadvantage of essentially a two party system.


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

Debatable. I'm not so convinced that the "international community" is more stable as a whole than the US political climate. It's had power changes without violent outbreaks for quite a long time. Outside from people saying the elections were "stolen" or whatever the last 2 times (garbage, of course), it's worked very well for 200 years or so. Not too bad, eh?

Reply Score: 0

It*s that simple...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If the EU can pass a law, that requires ISPs inside the EU to set their ROOT-Servers to alternative root-servers, what will the US government be doing about it?

Reply Score: 0

v RE: It*s that simple...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 16:58 UTC in reply to "It*s that simple..."
RE[2]: It*s that simple...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE: It*s that simple..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Root-Servers dont*t make a new net, especially if they are synced with ICANN for now.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: It*s that simple...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It*s that simple..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

we are talking about root servers and IPs here.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: It*s that simple...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE: It*s that simple..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Why *start* our own? Almost every country has their own nets which are just linked together. The US is just one of these many countries with just one of these many nets. Yet it want's to control ALL countries nets by requiring to follow its rules if they want to stay connected to the US net. The only way to show how this is wrong is to disconnect the USA from the global internet and give control over the global internet to the UN. It won't take long until the US begs to be reconnected to the global internet.

Reply Score: 0

Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I never knew there were so many moronic self hating americans... I already knew everyone else hated America all the jealousy, misconceptions, and rumors do that to people

Anyways why exactly does ANYONE in there right mind wand to give the UN control of the internet? I mean why don't we just put China, Iran, syria, NK, lybia, cuba, and russia in charge of the worlds new and information since theydo so well with it at home. You people are f--king stupid. Should the US have controlof the internet? no. Should the UN have control? HELL NO Should we create a new body with out nations the limit speech and expression? Yes. Does the US limit said things? Sadly for you american haters... No. Don't us .xxx and a excuse to be led hand and foo tby China and there dicator buddies.

In 3 years we will have a new president and it will all be different. Which is more then I can say for the most of the nations who want the UN in control. I wonder what all the bush haters will do then.

Anyone who wants to do as China wants is a fool. I mean this entire conversation is probally illegal in china.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:09 UTC in reply to "Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

tell me would this new body have the type of 1st ammendment protections in place like the US has? people here keep saying international body of democratic nations, but fail to realize that many democratic nations are not free. For example, go to paris france and wear a shirt with a swatstik (regardless of context) and see what happens (you go to jail accused of being a Nazi). Now do the same thing in DC and watch everyone ignore or laugh at you.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

True but I wasn't really thinking about that. I think the US should retain control of the existing .com .net .org .mil and .gov and let the rest of the world play with the rest. To much american money and time has gone into those to let them be shut down or stolen because of some silly dispute else where in the world. Yahoo and Ebay would probally lose there domains since they don't bow to certain places demands.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"tell me would this new body have the type of 1st ammendment protections in place like the US has? people here keep saying international body of democratic nations, but fail to realize that many democratic nations are not free. For example, go to paris france and wear a shirt with a swatstik (regardless of context) and see what happens (you go to jail accused of being a Nazi). Now do the same thing in DC and watch everyone ignore or laugh at you"

Walk around in DC wearing a "Bush is a terrorist" -shirt, get abducted by FBI-agents enforcing Patriot Act, disappear and no-one will ever hear from you again. So much for your freedom and democracy.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Geez...
by ACarlow on Wed 19th Oct 2005 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Geez..."
ACarlow Member since:
2005-10-18

"Walk around in DC wearing a "Bush is a terrorist" -shirt, get abducted by FBI-agents enforcing Patriot Act, disappear and no-one will ever hear from you again. So much for your freedom and democracy"

I hate to break it to you but wearing that tshirt is totally legal.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Geez...
by smitty on Wed 19th Oct 2005 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Geez..."
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

That shirt is less likely to land you in Gitmo than in a hospital. At least if you live in the Midwest like I do. There is very little direct censorship in America, but tons and tons of "if you do ... then me and all my friends will ... (boycott you, beat the hell out of you, stop talking to you...)"

To be honest, I don't have a big problem with the anti-nazi laws in Europe. It is anti-free speech, but free speech should have its limits when there isn't any purpose to it. Celebrating what everyone agrees was a horrible tragedy doesn't serve any purpose except to piss people off.

And for Americans saying its a sign of how you can't trust free speech with Europeans, I tell you to think about all the talk there is about a constitutional ammendment banning flag burning. That has more purpose to it than celebrating Hitler does. (Not that I agree with it, either).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Geez...
by Omega Supreme on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:18 UTC in reply to "Geez..."
Omega Supreme Member since:
2005-07-11

"HELL NO Should we create a new body with out nations the limit speech and expression? Yes. Does the US limit said things? Sadly for you american haters... No. Don't us .xxx and a excuse to be led hand and foo tby China and there dicator buddies. "

Forget the fact that the USA is the country that even limits the words you can use on television. Even if you hear them in the wild all the time. Forget that there are major forces in the US that want to limit speech about evolution, euthenasia you name it. And that in some states these kind of people have already been succesfull. Combine this with the fact that the US has no problem arresting someone for something they did in russia where it was legal when he comes to the US where it is illegal and I think you have a very good reason to question the USA and its governments intents. Of course all the counries you mention are pretty much clear on their intent and if they persist the split would come between them and the rest of the world. Which is a lot less disruptive for your (US) and our (Europe) economies then any other alternative. In the end US control over a communications medium that is vital to all western countries economies won't stand.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Certain words should be said on TV thats not censorship or a violation of free speech.

Yeah the religious nuts jobs... though that not much different from the rest of the world every nation has there taboos such as France and nazis as someone pointed out.

US law at all time applies to US citizens and legal aliens as it always has. Just because you left the nation to go rape a 10 year old in asia doesn't mean you should be given a free pass when you get back because it was outside the US.

Hey now I'm not infavor of keeping the EU out of it even if I find the EU broken in design with that lovely council that does what they are paid to do.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Geez...
by Omega Supreme on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Geez..."
Omega Supreme Member since:
2005-07-11

"Certain words should be said on TV thats not censorship or a violation of free speech."

What happens on US television may not be violation of free spech, since you should be able to make any point without those words. But it is censorship and limits free expression. This though to me is not a major thing, it's just americans being silly and pretending that this actually means anything in real life.

"Yeah the religious nuts jobs... though that not much different from the rest of the world every nation has there taboos such as France and nazis as someone pointed out."

And as such, with each country having it's own nut jobs, international control is a good way to keep them out.

"US law at all time applies to US citizens and legal aliens as it always has. Just because you left the nation to go rape a 10 year old in asia doesn't mean you should be given a free pass when you get back because it was outside the US."

Dimitri Skylarov was not a US citizen, did not break any laws, but the US decide to prosecute non the less. Another example, a Dutch citizen sells drugs to an American Citizen who brings it to the US. I am ashamed of my own government for delivering him into the hands of the US. He broke dutch laws, not US laws, unless you think you can dictate what we can do in our own country. He should be prosecuted in The Netherlands for his crimes under Dutch law.

You try to win points by pointing at something appalling. But yes the US should let him go free. If a sovereign nation decides that rape should be legal it is not America's place to punish their citizens if they visit the US. Now if it is an American, the US could make it illegal in the US to go to this country to rape. By going to this country and doing this he can be punished under US law, for doing this.

"Hey now I'm not infavor of keeping the EU out of it even if I find the EU broken in design with that lovely council that does what they are paid to do."

Welcome to the club. We don't trust them either, thats why we the dutch kicked out that phony constitution. I don't think the American system works, but the EU is even worse in some cases. Why? Because you can elect a different government to undo the damage, in the EU it's most of the times not even elected officials that make the decissions. You can't vote them out!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Dimitri Skylarov was not a US citizen, did not break any laws, but the US decide to prosecute non the less. Another example, a Dutch citizen sells drugs to an American Citizen who brings it to the US. I am ashamed of my own government for delivering him into the hands of the US. He broke dutch laws, not US laws, unless you think you can dictate what we can do in our own country. He should be prosecuted in The Netherlands for his crimes under Dutch law."

considering that the EU nations have universal jurisdiction laws, that is incredibly hypocritical. For example if I did something in the US that is illegal in Belgium, they can grab me in another country and take me to Belgium to be tried.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Geez...
by Omega Supreme on Wed 19th Oct 2005 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Geez..."
Omega Supreme Member since:
2005-07-11

"considering that the EU nations have universal jurisdiction laws, that is incredibly hypocritical. For example if I did something in the US that is illegal in Belgium, they can grab me in another country and take me to Belgium to be tried."

Last I checked Belgium itself wasn't too happy with that law. And if my comments tell you anything, it is that I am against those laws as well.

And the universal jurisdiction in the EU is something the governments agreed upon. Not something each diceded for himself to apply. And again, I am what people call overhere a eurosceptic. So don't tell me whats wrong with the EU, I know and will probably just agree with you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Its called an extradition treaty. If we don't like things in the US, we write our congressman, and if doesn't respond favorably, you vote for someone else. I suggest you do the equivalent in Belgium, and stay on topic.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Geez...
by Omega Supreme on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Geez..."
Omega Supreme Member since:
2005-07-11

At the risk of angering you for being off-topic. Extradition treaty are for criminals who fled the country where they commited their crime to be delivered to the proper authorities in that country upon capture. Not for someone who abides by the laws of his country or not to be sent of to some country he's never been because they don't like what he did. He wasn't there so he shouldn't be able to be prosecuted there.

Why did this come up. It was one example of why many europeans have problems with the US. Which is one reason to worry about US control of an important international communications medium. The current US gevernment cares for noone but itself (frankly I doubt Dubya cares about Americans in general, unless he has something to gain himself), why should we entrust something vital to us to them?

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

err, you have your facts backwards. We dislike the EU becasue of things like belguim's univeral jurisdiction laws. For example, if you did something in your country that is illegal in Belgium you WILL be arrested for it if charges are brought agianst you there.

also do youreally believe the UN or the EC care about anyone?

Reply Score: 0

RE[8]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Why did this come up. It was one example of why many europeans have problems with the US. Which is one reason to worry about US control of an important international communications medium. The current US gevernment cares for noone but itself (frankly I doubt Dubya cares about Americans in general, unless he has something to gain himself), why should we entrust something vital to us to them?

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

I guess it really does not matter that you don't trust the US. Europeans should worry about real problems, like making sure no more dictators cause trouble like back in the 30's and 40's. What a wast of flesh that was.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

err where do you get your news from? you can say anything and show anything on TV here. It is more a matter of when and where (watch HBO or cable in general). Show me a country that protects free speech like the US. show me something you can say in france that you cant sayin the US (short of a threat to kill someone). I have many examples of the opposite.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Geez...
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:25 UTC in reply to "Geez..."
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

China, Iran, syria, NK, lybia

That's all you've got ? Do you know how many countries are in the UN ? Do you know any other way to give a supranational power aver the Internet ? I don't see why UN would not be the perfect place, but personnality, I have nothing against a balanced team, as long as it is fair to anyone.

Don't us .xxx

It's just too easy to just dismiss the latest intervention of the US government. We just had the proof that it is not working correctly right now.
But US people replying to this thread are just not trying to understand what others have to say. Internet is an international invention, combining the work of many people around the world. What's more, Web content is fully international, mainly due to its origin (a combination of international networks). There is a need to have an Internet not threatened by national politics, and as such, there is a need of supranational dominance.

Then, why is it so hard to understand ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

If we put the UN incharge of the internet do you know what will happen? Nothing. One nation or another will veto any idea or change. It's a moronic suggestion in it's purest form. You have a place where 1 veto kill anything dead and you want to put the internet in it's hand? Hello? Get a clue. Everytime China tries to do something it will get vetoed by the US and the UK cause till probally involve censorship and other lovely things the reverse is also true. We don't want the internet to be another UN play toy to help nations get there way in unrealted feilds.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Geez...
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Geez..."
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

You don't understand one thing. Passing charge to the UN doesn't mean that any decision has to pass through all the process. If you knew better UN, you would know that they are open to the fact that they can create commission with regular way of working (which means no veto or that sort of thing). Anyway, it's kind of stupid since the country which veto quite everything is US, and then, they blame nations which almost never use this way. They just need to understand that different nations have different objectives. My country has a law against "incitation à la violence", which means that promoting violence or racism is prohibited. The big difference is that it is perfectly accepted by anyone here and it is barely used by officials.
A website promoting the murder of arabs have been closed six months ago, and I do understand why ;)

Reply Score: 1

gps
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The reason gps wasn't as accurate is so "bad guys" could use it to blow up things.

AFAIK it is more accurate now becasue the "jamming" is gone.

Go ahead and make your own gps the way you want it to, no one is stoping you, but the problem is solved.

Reply Score: 0

Good job Senator Coleman
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The internet was invented, fostered, maintained, and managed by the U.S. since it's inception and other countries and especially the UN have no business trying to take over something they have no investement in. Secondly, would you trust an organization so corrupt and defunct as the UN to manage your internet access? An organization that puts dictators who have killed thousands on committees for human rights and world hunger! What a friggin joke. Just the fact that the UN even mentions that they would like to impose taxes on internet usage of any kind should send chills down the spine of anyone with half a brain. The bottom line the internet domain is the United States domain and no one elses take a leap off the nearest cliff you bunch of UN dipsh*ts.

Reply Score: 0

International governance makes sense
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:26 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

First, I'm American. Second, it makes no difference who invented which part of the internet. It is now, and has been for over 20 years, an internation phenomenon. Worldwide, we all share in its use, so we should all share in its governance. It's that simple.

And a note to my over-patriotic countrymen who use terms like 'euro-weenies': keep your friggin' pie holes shut before the rest of the world thinks all Americans are as ignorant as you are!

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

its not a matter of who invented it, it is a matter of who paid for it and pays for it now. if you bought a new house and were kind enough to let others live in it for free, does that give then the right to demand control over the house?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

The last time I checked, use of the Internet was free, apart from having to pay your ISP for a subscription. So if you wanna know who pays for the Internet, we all do.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

right and who maintains the DNS and assigns IPs.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

That's what this debate is all about. But since we have DNS registration happening by companies all over the world, then it makes sense to put governance in the hands of an international body.

Reply Score: 0

i think its funny
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Heres some of my little things about this issue.
Frist off maybe we Candians should take back hockey or control it so that way you americans cant see the puck. Since you have to use a blue streak to show where it is all time. And control how badly alot of the americans hockey teams are and get paid a lot for there bad playing.

And if it wasnt for us Canadians coming and cleaning up
after your wars. And putting up with your crying to us and britan to help you out all the time. We would be in a better place.

And Lastly the only true war americans lost was against Candians, since we just walked over the border and set there white house on fire ;)
http://www.multied.com/1812/Index.html

Reply Score: 0

RE: i think its funny
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:33 UTC in reply to "i think its funny"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And if it wasnt for us Canadians coming and cleaning up
after your wars. And putting up with your crying to us and britan to help you out all the time. We would be in a better place"

WTF? care to explain that bit? canada has a military? it is a military power? huh?

Reply Score: 0

RE: i think its funny
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:51 UTC in reply to "i think its funny"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"And Lastly the only true war americans lost was against Candians, since we just walked over the border and set there white house on fire ;) "

July 1, 1869 - Canadian Independance granted by the British

August 1814 - Burning of the Capitol, White House, other Gov. buildings.

It doesn't take a history major to determine that the Canadians did not burn down the White House. Further, the war of 1812 was a stalemate. The definition of "losing a war" implies a surrender.

I consider americans brothers to Canadians and the brits. I'm dissapointed in all the ignorant comments from all sides.

I think most people from free democratic countries can agree that the Root DNS servers should not be in the hands of the UN, and they should not be controlled by the US alone. We are not talking about the entire Internet, but rather the DNS aspect.

Reply Score: 0

RE: i think its funny
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 23:06 UTC in reply to "i think its funny"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Heres some of my little things about this issue.
Frist off maybe we Candians should take back hockey or control it so that way you americans cant see the puck. Since you have to use a blue streak to show where it is all time. And control how badly alot of the americans hockey teams are and get paid a lot for there bad playing.

And if it wasnt for us Canadians coming and cleaning up
after your wars. And putting up with your crying to us and britan to help you out all the time. We would be in a better place.

And Lastly the only true war americans lost was against Candians, since we just walked over the border and set there white house on fire ;)
http://www.multied.com/1812/Index.html


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


Yeah, tell your stupid hockey teams to quit moving to the USA! (Quebec Nordiques, for example...hello Avalance!)

See what you can do about that, sizzle chest:)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: i think its funny
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 01:40 UTC in reply to "RE: i think its funny"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And Lastly the only true war americans lost was against Candians, since we just walked over the border and set there white house on fire ;)

First let me state I as a US citizen am having a blast responding to some of these anti-American comments I love a good debate. To the person who wrote this comment I'll assume your Canadian oh and by the way I hold dual citizenship with Canada. Allrigth Canada was not a nation in 1812 learn your own history.

The British North America Acts 1867–1975 are a series of Acts of the British Parliament dealing with the government of Canada. The first and most important Act of the series, the British North America Act, 1867 (now the Constitution Act, 1867), was passed in 1867, and created the self-governing dominion of Canada.

Canada and the other British dominions achieved full legislative sovereignty with the passage of the Statute of Westminster 1931, but prior to the Canada Act 1982 the British North America Acts were excluded from the operation of the Statute of Westminster and could only be amended by the British Parliament.

Basically you were British/French citizens during the war of 1812.
Also the US didn't lose the war it ended with British agreements to stop the impressment of US citizens into the British navy. While yes a main goal was the taking of the land called Canada the large goal was securing freedom for US sailors to avoid impressment.

Reply Score: 0

Reasonable Americans
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

But, you are a bunch of pansies. Your jealousy over the US is rather amazing. That's why the UN was invented in the first place - so little countries like yours could feel important.

Yes, we did win WWII. We saved all of Europe's sorry ass in the process. They showed us on 9/11? They showed us what cowards they are by attacking CIVILIANS. Their sorry asses are on the run right now too. If you think terrorism is just something the US has to worry about, then you're even dumber than I orignally though.

Screw the UN and screw the EU.


As an American, I am depressed by what some of my fellow Americans have to say.

We live in a small world these days, and globalization is making it smaller by the day. The time has come for us to stop being the schoolyard bully and step up to the plate as a real world leader; that is, by leading, by building consensus and compromise, by working with all nations to recognize their importance in the overall global village in which we live.

All of this stuff about what was invented where or by whom is irrelevant. We need to look at the situation as it exists now.

I am not suggesting the UN is proper place for this matter. One look at the headlines shows you that the UN is just as broken as our current administration is. However, I do think that an international technical body of some sort should be created to manage this matter.

To my fellow Americans: stop coming across as arrogant bastards. We have things to learn from our fellow human beings around the world. The world does not revolve around the US. We are not perfect and we are not always right.

To other folks: America is not all bad. We have done and continue to do good things in this world. We really do try to do the right thing most of the time. We are not always wrong.

Charles


Always good to see there actually are some reasonable Americans.

Reply Score: 0

It ain't broke.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If it ain't broke..... Don't fix it.

Reply Score: 1

Heard It All Now
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I've heard everything now

There was an American earlier making a claim on the English Language

Jesus H Wept! What the Hell do they actually teach you lot over there!

I've heard some dumb things but boy that takes some beating

Reply Score: 0

RE: Heard It All Now
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:50 UTC in reply to "Heard It All Now"
Anonymous Member since:
---

that was a troll. funny how you euro weenies can post something that is that you know is false and then claim it to be true.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

you Americans think you're so f--kin' smart, when actually you are like donkeys, you can only see whats in front of your eyes, and forget whats around you.. maybe if you turn the TV off, you will be able to think for yourselves.

you may have invented the Internet.. but that doesn't mean you have the right to define the standards in everything thats is part of it.

its like ford now deciding to define the air conditioning (in cars) standards..

so bush doesn't like .xxx, well too bad for him! .xxx domains are used in http protocol, and hypertext sharing between networks its part of the world wide web, and that my friends, its an European invention (Tim Berners-Lee, CERN 1989)!

so you see, the Internet only became world widely known and easy to use, after the Europeans played with it.

want to know another interesting thing? the Internet was based on the work of Louis Pouzin (thats a french guy!) and taken to the US by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn.

check the wikipedi for any of those things.
so shut the f--k up, and stop trying to rule the world!

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

so you see, the Internet only became world widely known and easy to use, after the Europeans played with it.

want to know another interesting thing? the Internet was based on the work of Louis Pouzin (thats a french guy!) and taken to the US by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn.

check the wikipedi for any of those things.
so shut the f--k up, and stop trying to rule the world!

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

You euro's should mind your own house and make sure the likes of Hitler and Muzzolini don't return.

Who's trying to rule the world?

DUmbass...

Reply Score: 0

re i think its funny
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

all i was saying about us Candians help cleaning up your mess is that it seems like every time you start something he have to get our peace keeping buts over there so that way that country doesnt retaliate due to americans bad thinking. And you guys go back home and leave everything in ruins. Yes we have a milatary but it it isnt the best in the world. We dont put millions of dollars into weapons and such. We give that money back to the people.

Reply Score: 0

RE: re i think its funny
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 18:00 UTC in reply to "re i think its funny"
Anonymous Member since:
---

care to provide some examples to back that up.

Reply Score: 0

RE: re i think its funny
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 23:17 UTC in reply to "re i think its funny"
Anonymous Member since:
---

all i was saying about us Candians help cleaning up your mess is that it seems like every time you start something he have to get our peace keeping buts over there so that way that country doesnt retaliate due to americans bad thinking. And you guys go back home and leave everything in ruins. Yes we have a milatary but it it isnt the best in the world. We dont put millions of dollars into weapons and such. We give that money back to the people.

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

Sorry to have inconvenienced you canuck!

Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if the US could stop wasting money on other countries and the military? Sounds good to me. Someone else can come in and wipe your asses all over the place like has happened in the past.

OK, everyone, new rules...everyone stay in their own country because we no longer have a milatary to do anyting about it...umK? Please?....

Reply Score: 0

European Cowards Die In Shame
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>>you may have invented the Internet.. but that doesn't mean you have the right to define the standards in everything thats is part of it.<<

Actually it does. And there's nothing you weak Europeans can do about it. Got a problem with it, invade us. That's the only way you'll ever get to our "root servers". But you won't.

Cowards.

You guys never stand up for anything, except maybe Fascism and/or surrendering to Fascists, depending on which pathetic European country you happen to be.

Keep sending your women over here to study in our *colleges* (i.e. not "Uni") so us American guys can show them what a real man is all about.

Reply Score: 0

RE: European Cowards Die In Shame
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:56 UTC in reply to "European Cowards Die In Shame"
Anonymous Member since:
---

what does the US stand for?
mass murder of innocents and the rape of nature?
racism?

Reply Score: 0

Omega Supreme Member since:
2005-07-11

"Actually it does. And there's nothing you weak Europeans can do about it. Got a problem with it, invade us. That's the only way you'll ever get to our "root servers". But you won't. "

Hah, we dont need to. All we need to do is put up our own servers and have all the ISP use those. If the don't do it, put it in law. This basically seperates us from the US >part< of the internet. If enough join, the US would be the ones that are isolated.

Know what you are talking about! But hey you're from the country that passed a law allowing you to invade our country to get your war criminals out. But you want to prosecute every other country's war criminals undisturbed. So I can't make sense of you anyway ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

actually, that is what we are telling you to do. Take your euro trash and set up your own IP and DNS system, dont take ours away. We are letting you use ours for free go start your own.

right the fake court. keep in mind that it is unconstitutional in the US since it is higher than the US supreme court. Some of us will never bow down to an unelected euro court without a fight. Only in europe is someone guilty until found innocent.

Reply Score: 0

lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

Only in europe is someone guilty until found innocent

Do you remember Guantanamo ? And yes, in every European country, like in almost every country around the world (Argentina, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Japan, etc...), a man is innocent until found guilty.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Do you remember Guantanamo"

what? you mean people caught in the battlefield not in uniform and not fighting for a military? they should have been shot according to the geneva conventions. Not wearing a uniform when fighting is a serious crime because it puts civillians at risk. Of course, dont let the facts get in the way of hating America.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

what? you mean people caught in the battlefield not in uniform and not fighting for a military? they should have been shot according to the geneva conventions. Not wearing a uniform when fighting is a serious crime because it puts civillians at risk. Of course, dont let the facts get in the way of hating America.
--------------------------------------

err? what! geneva conventions, do you understand anything about that and why you are showing your lack of understanding when you say they should have being shot according to the convention


again I ask, what are you taught over there?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

wait, are you saying that fighting out of uniform is not a crime? What are YOU taught over there (other than american is bad)

Reply Score: 0

lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

FYI: In Guantanamo were kept hundreds of people in captivity because the US gov thought they were guilty for facts related to 9/11. It turned out after more than 2 years withour lawyers that the large majority was innocent and didn't have anything to do with 9/11. USA didn't respect the Genova convention which says that everyone has the right to have a lawyer if they are not pursued for war crime. US doesn't have any excuses for not respecting one of the basics of democracy.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

actually, i cant believe you euros are so ignorant. here is the text of GC III.

Art 4 covers all conflicts not covered by Art 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines who is a prisoner of war and, therefor, a protected person under GCIII. Those entitled to prisoner of war status include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.



care to explain how Al-Queda fulfills these? i cant even believe you people actually accept the trash your giv tells you. all the more reason why you shoudl have no control over the internet that i use.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

where does it say THAT THEY MUST BE SHOT as you said they should be according to the GV?

Hate to break it to you, but killing innocent people is murder even if the US govt lets them off, remember the soliders pumping injured men on the ground full of bullets, thats called murder

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Turn of Fox News and start reading up. A lot of people got sold by local warlords to the US forces as "talibans" since they could get money for those..

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"right the fake court. keep in mind that it is unconstitutional in the US since it is higher than the US supreme court. Some of us will never bow down to an unelected euro court without a fight. Only in europe is someone guilty until found innocent."

lol.. at least we dont kill people and say it was for the best..

how many innocents have you killed that way? well, i guess it comes with the territory..

for real, you still think the death pennalty its a good idea? i bet most of the americans (again, the educated ones) think its not.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Only in europe is someone guilty until found innocent.
-----------------------------------

you're kidding right??? LOL

you don't keep up with the news do you kiddy!

I take it you've heard of guatemala Bay?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"you don't keep up with the news do you kiddy!

I take it you've heard of guatemala Bay?"

actually no. care to explain "guatemala Bay" to me. I clearly have not kept up with the news. I would like to know more about "guatemala Bay"

Reply Score: 0

RE: European Cowards Die In Shame
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:58 UTC in reply to "European Cowards Die In Shame"
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

To US citizens : we know you're not all like the guy I'm responding to. Some of you (the educated ones) does not put all their pride with the supposed size of their penis ;)

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Thank you, lezard. This moron is giving all Americans a bad name. I guess some just can't keep their mouths shut, or maybe they're not trying. But that kind of backward thinking belongs in the past.

Reply Score: 0

lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

There are stupid everywhere, we all know that ;) I am not that smart anyway...
As I don't trust any gov (mine including), I think the only place where you can get the right decision is the place where you can have a debate.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Exactly. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we'll be able to resolve this problem by debate, as you've noticed. Still, it's so stereotypical of whoever this idiot is to be spouting off this kind of xenophic drivel. Almost makes me ashamed to be American. I do love my country, but some of my countrymen I can do without. Cheers.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

To US citizens : we know you're not all like the guy I'm responding to. Some of you (the educated ones) does not put all their pride with the supposed size of their penis ;)

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

Oh, oh...let me...this one is begging for a retort.

THis is because they have SMALL penis's.

Had to reply. No flames, plz.

Reply Score: 0

RE: European Cowards Die In Shame
by Gryzor on Thu 20th Oct 2005 17:28 UTC in reply to "European Cowards Die In Shame"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

Keep sending your women over here to study in our *colleges* (i.e. not "Uni") so us American guys can show them what a real man is all about.

Fool yankee, what we send is sh**; we, just like you, prefer to keep the good stuff at home, safe from fat Mc Donalds eater bastards.

Go eat your calories; "How many pounds do you want to gain today?"

Nothing is North American, because north america is a sublclass of the rest of the world. You're American :: IEuropean (which in turn comes from below the class level).

(I had to answer this, I'm laughing out loud).

The "Uni" you're talking about sucks, you pay thounsands of dollars to be trained by fat pigs like you. Sigh.. if you only opened your minds JUST a little bit...

Let's just use Rendevouz (Ejem.. Bonjour) oh no... that's American too... ok, let's just use Air Mail to send TCP packets back and forth.

Here's a Diet Coke for ya, american fella... (oh Coke is american? sh** we can't do anything, we're doomed!)

Reply Score: 1

It is not an American Internet
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

As usual Americans try to portray the Internet as the US's gift to the world, delivered neatly packaged out of nothing.

This is forgetting that the Internet as we know it today would not exist without the WWW, which was created by people on the payroll of CERN, a European government-funded organization.

Sure, the IP protocol is the direct heir of academic research projects that have had some funding from US government agencies, but it has always been an academic project, with input from researchers all over the world. All the concepts behind IP can trace their origins in research papers and experiments in the US, Europe and Japan.

On the other hand I don't really care about that particular topic. Administration of the DNS top servers doesn't amount to "controlling the flow of information", not by a long shot. If China wants to lay some fiber over to North Korea and circulate some IP packets on it, there's nothing the US or ICANN can do about it, DNS or not. It just takes some gateway to be install on top of existing domains for the thing to be accessible from all over the world.

Nobody controls the Internet and ever will, that's the whole beauty of the concept. There is nothing really at stake here.

Reply Score: 0

It is not an American Internet
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

As usual Americans try to portray the Internet as the US's gift to the world, delivered neatly packaged out of nothing.

This is forgetting that the Internet as we know it today would not exist without the WWW, which was created by people on the payroll of CERN, a European government-funded organization.

Sure, the IP protocol is the direct heir of academic research projects that have had some funding from US government agencies, but it has always been an academic project, with input from researchers all over the world. All the concepts behind IP can trace their origins in research papers and experiments in the US, Europe and Japan.

On the other hand I don't really care about that particular topic. Administration of the DNS top servers doesn't amount to "controlling the flow of information", not by a long shot. If China wants to lay some fiber over to North Korea and circulate some IP packets on it, there's nothing the US or ICANN can do about it, DNS or not. It just takes some gateway to be install on top of existing domains for the thing to be accessible from all over the world.

Nobody controls the Internet and ever will, that's the whole beauty of the concept. There is nothing really at stake here.

Reply Score: 0

RE: It is not an American Internet
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 23:20 UTC in reply to "It is not an American Internet"
Anonymous Member since:
---

As usual Americans try to portray the Internet as the US's gift to the world, delivered neatly packaged out of nothing.

This is forgetting that the Internet as we know it today would not exist without the WWW, which was created by people on the payroll of CERN, a European government-funded organization.


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

You know, the napoleon complex I keep seeing form the euro's is starting to get tiring.

No kidding, the euro's have contributed a lot. So? There are a lot of uninformed posters here. Isn't the "anonymous" internet a beautiful thing?

Reply Score: 0

RE: CANADA
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 18:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

IP: 155.41.133 wrote

And if it wasnt for us Canadians coming and cleaning up
after your wars. And putting up with your crying to us and britan to help you out all the time. We would be in a better place"


Canadians hide behind the power of the US military that is what allows them to fund their military like a boy scout troop and then turn around and claim they are "peaceful". In other words hide behind the cover of the big bad Americans when convenient but immediately distance themselves from American Policy when it appears unpopular to the Europeans.

If Americans are as bad as Canadians make them out to be Canada would have been annexed many years ago just like the Soviets did to Estonia/Latvia and the Chinese did to Mongolia.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: European Cowards Die In Shame
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 18:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think you will find when a country is invaded many citizens will attempt to fight the foriegn invaders

I don't the convention tells them to shoot them

I thought you lot liked freedom fighters? hell you sponsered the IRA for years to murder innocents only when it happened to yourselfs did freedom fighter suddenly turned into a bad word and became terrorists

Reply Score: 0

Damn, europeans really are a dumb bunch.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 18:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

To those whinning because they can't have what we invented and do have, do you realize that if your goverments did get control that it would cost YOU? You do know that the UN has had a hard-on for years for putting taxes on the Internet, don't you? Are you really that anxious to pay money to use what is currently free?

Please, feel free to start your own Internet, and disconnect the US from it. That way, when you send out an email and you have to pay for it, and when you cannot read websites due to it being censored, sit there and be thankfull that at least you can go to .xxx and get your porn.

Reply Score: 0

Here we go again....
by cibus on Wed 19th Oct 2005 18:38 UTC
cibus
Member since:
2005-07-06

Quote monkeydo off slashdot:


WTF does any of this have to do with the "day to day operations of the net?" The day to day operations of the net are accomplished by obscure engineers toiling in relative anonymity at ISP's all across the globe. This is about editorial control (not even technical control) of the "." DNS zone file, and nothing more. This is such a non-issue technically and for the future "evolution" of the Internet that it's laughable watching all the anti-American slashbots get worked into a lather over it.

Basically what this boils down to is who gets to say what new TLDs (like .com, .net, etc.) will be created. Right now it is ICANN under contract with the Department of Commerce. Some think it should be the UN. Honestly, I really don't know why. It's a minor thing that has nothing to do with actually controlling anything. If you don't like the US DoC controlling your root (and remember it's just the file, not the servers themselves), you already have alternatives [wikipedia.org].

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: European Cowards Die In Shame
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 18:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

right lets get this straight, if a foreign country invades you and its citizens fight back against foreign aggressors, then they are spies!!!!!!!!

god damm, no wonder your country is so F**K up

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

keep in mind it is the GENEVA convention, your country probably also signed it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[10]: European Cowards Die In Shame
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 18:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why not? they are more truthful then your proven lying govt

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

ah good oke Kojo and Kofi annan. From the people who brought you oil for food and the congo rape for food scandals.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Why not? they are more truthful then your proven lying govt

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

And I suppose where you live you have cornered the market on honest politicians? Bah!

Reply Score: 0

RE: RE[11]: European Cowards Die In Shame
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 18:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

WMD? Iraq was responsible for 911? what about the rest of the lies your govt being caught up with?

I'd rather believe them the Bush and the oil giants

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

good for you. do that.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

WMD? Iraq was responsible for 911? what about the rest of the lies your govt being caught up with?

I'd rather believe them the Bush and the oil giants


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

US never said Iraq was responsible for 911.


Iraq was invaded because of all the UN mandates that were broken consistently since the first Persian Gulf war. What the heck is the UN doing passing resolutions if the guy just scoffs them up and wastes people as the UN does nothing?

Oh, OK, cross THIS line and die. No? Cross THIS line and die. Dammit, quit it! -UN

Reply Score: 0

Good lord, shut this news topic down
by mini-me on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:01 UTC
mini-me
Member since:
2005-07-06

So many childish comments, on both sides! I don't have enough votes to make them all at least 1 negative point. People have lost the ability to have intellectual conversations and present arguments, and accept competing arguments gracefully. This topic has gone down the drail...

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

i cant help but wonder if this story was posted to do just that. Some topics attract the loonies and this whole US vs Europe thing has been brewing since 1919.

Reply Score: 0

RE[10]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

err, you have a problem with arrest for Genocide :cough:

Reply Score: 0

RE: RE[11]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:21 UTC in reply to " RE[10]: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

yeah, when unelected officials in a foreign country try to convict me of "genocide" based on their own standards of evidence for something i supposedly did in some other country, i would have a problem with that.

Reply Score: 0

RE[13]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Reminds me a bit of the CIA agents in Italy, theres is warrants for there arrest due to them kidnapping a Italian citizens and transporting them to another country so they could be tortured

Reply Score: 0

RE: RE[14]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:53 UTC in reply to " RE[13]: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

right. so who has been convicted of that? have they even found the people who supposedly did that? nope. but conspiricy theories aside, the us gov doesnt officially have laws that give it universal jurisdiction like some EU states.

Reply Score: 0

....
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The good thing about Western countries is that the average person is able to have a fairly high standard of living in spite of corruption all around. The rich are able to get away with crime and the smaller groups are the escape goats, however if you are able to keep out of the spotlight, which is the smart thing to do, than the west offers the most possibilities, and it is up to you to take advantage of them or not. The Internet issue is just something else to fight over and the USA has a bad reputation because of Microsoft and the idiot decisions that their government makes and the simple child like acceptance of the religious worshippers toward anyone who throws on a robe and calls themselves priests. Well I just wanted to tell all of Europe that most Canadians do not trust the government in the USA or Canada, but we are normal people who have a good life and try to stay out of all the fighting. I like Linux and freedom but this is only true so long as I keep out of the power stuggle, because seeking control leads to corruption.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The problem with the US in my mind at this time is that big business has too much control on govt

eg. Bush is trying push through new laws that tha will give tax breaks to oil companies whilst also relaxing environment laws?!!?! its things like that think WTF is going one over there

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:56 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

good thing you euro weenies cant vote over here and therefore what you think doesnt matter. As a matter of fact, you dont matter. you are just one person and what you think means nothing. The people who can vote disagree and fortunately what they think matters.

have a nice day.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 23:47 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

The problem with the US in my mind at this time is that big business has too much control on govt

eg. Bush is trying push through new laws that tha will give tax breaks to oil companies whilst also relaxing environment laws?!!?! its things like that think WTF is going one over there

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

He's not going to kill big companies and force people to lose their jobs. I say bravo! If you were unemployed, how would you feel, trying to figure out how to put food on your plate?

Although other countries are shrewd, at least someone in the US knows what he is doing. Without companies that employee the citizens, it's tough to run a country.

How do you all like it that everything is now made in china? Cause they work for peanuts...and how may envirnmental controls do you think that communist state puts on it's factories? See if you can find accurate info.

Even though you may not like how things are done here, there is at least a chance that if things don't work out that they can change. Since you are not citizens, feel free to ZIP THY LIPS when it comes to policy and laws here in the US. What makes you think you can bitch about them? You have no rights over in the US, so (refer back to the ZIP THY LIPS statement).

If you are offended by this post, then I'm sure you know this is the way it is and it burns your biscuits cause you can't do anything about it.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

In the West doing something good is very difficult and it is not financially prudent. It is far easier to do nothing or to get into a group and do bad things involving an attack on some other group. That might not be democracy but it is real life and we are just trying to survive. The USA is a protectionist and it should be because it is getting an ass kicking from all over the place.

Indeed invent something else, some other Internet. It isn't about finding the answer, it is about financing it and producing it. The knowledge is worth two cents but actually doing something is worth all the money.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:50 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"The USA is a protectionist and it should be because it is getting an ass kicking from all over the place."

man, what world are you on? how manty super powers are there? what the the richest and most powerful country in the world?

i seriously hope you dont believe what you post.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:23 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I don't know who the most powerful country is. I know that Canada would enevitably back the USA if there was some major world confontation but the USA has huge financial problems and its people are sloppy. Probably most people in Canada are too.

I live in the richest province in Canada and I'm a millionaire and I have nothing to do with the USA. I don't agree with the war, I'm scared of the USA's religious fundamentalism; they are a bunch of nut cakes. It appears that we are going to be shipping our oil to China. So I don't know what is going to happen but the USA is very unstable.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: ...
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

I live in the richest province in Canada and I'm a millionaire and I have nothing to do with the USA. I don't agree with the war, I'm scared of the USA's religious fundamentalism; they are a bunch of nut cakes. It appears that we are going to be shipping our oil to China. So I don't know what is going to happen but the USA is very unstable.

So you have nothing to do with America yet you can determine that my country is unstable? You my friend are the definition of an idiot.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

So I don't know what is going to happen but the USA is very unstable.

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

To be a millionaire, you must have done a lot of stealing. Not as much as a billionaire, but a lot non-theless. You have benefited from laws that help you make money. This is what the USA and Canada and other western countries are about. Thanks for participating.

Now, go ahead and ship your crap to CHINA, seeing as they deliver EVERYTING else to us. I'm sick of everything being cheap and being made there. In fact, even stuff that I think is quality, when I look at the label, it says "Made in China". God dammit, I want to PAY for something quality made here...

Comments in general...not intended to the original author:

It's tough. Getting tougher and tougher. With all the laws and regulations that we have to impose on large corporations (and you idiots how demand all of this), let's see how long you laugh when you lose your job since it moved to CHINA where it is much cheaper to do business due to few regulations and then SHIP it back to you with no "protectionist" restrictions.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 23:51 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

The USA is a protectionist and it should be because it is getting an ass kicking from all over the place.

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

It's hard to play when the teams are 200-2. (US_UK). You minor players should settle down and watch the master at his craft. Make sure you feed your people and provide jobs and protection. This is what a government is(should) be all about.

Which politician does not protect his interests, anyway? Why should the US not protect things it considers important to it's self-preservation? You got me stumped (cause you used protectionist in a general way, I responded with some generalities also).

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: ...
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"It's hard to play when the teams are 200-2. (US_UK). You minor players should settle down and watch the master at his craft. Make sure you feed your people and provide jobs and protection. This is what a government is(should) be all about."

Oh please! What a joke. It's pretty hard to read your statement with a straight face when 12.7% of the US popultation lives under the poverty rate (stats from 2004). Feel free to Google this.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: ...
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"It's hard to play when the teams are 200-2. (US_UK). You minor players should settle down and watch the master at his craft. Make sure you feed your people and provide jobs and protection. This is what a government is(should) be all about."

Oh please! What a joke. It's pretty hard to read your statement with a straight face when 12.7% of the US popultation lives under the poverty rate (stats from 2004). Feel free to Google this.

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

You got this all twisted up. If you (in general, "you") argue about an insignificant point (my claim about this tLD thing) and I say do something more important, like feed your people, it does not seem reasonable that you can come back and say "yeah, but your people are hungry too!". Just because people else where are starving does not mean that you should ignore your own people and go after something like this, which is TRIVIAl compared to hunger. I don't disagree with the facts, and don't want to verify them. Just, it does not help the people in YOUR country who COULD CARE LESS WHY THE US VETO'D the tLD when they ARE HUNGRY.

That is the point I was trying to make, not that the US has fewer hungry people than someone else.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: ...
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 12:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"You got this all twisted up. If you (in general, "you") argue about an insignificant point (my claim about this tLD thing) and I say do something more important, like feed your people, it does not seem reasonable that you can come back and say "yeah, but your people are hungry too!". Just because people else where are starving does not mean that you should ignore your own people and go after something like this, which is TRIVIAl compared to hunger. I don't disagree with the facts, and don't want to verify them. Just, it does not help the people in YOUR country who COULD CARE LESS WHY THE US VETO'D the tLD when they ARE HUNGRY.

That is the point I was trying to make, not that the US has fewer hungry people than someone else."

And my point was that you should STFU about dealing with hungry people in my country, when there are more of them in yours.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

money isn't everything, and when everybody finally realises that then the world will be a happier place

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 19:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I live in oil rich Alberta, it is the second largest source of proven oil in the world, and although the USA is our friend, we do not agree on everything. I hate Microsoft from one point of view but from another point of view Microsoft is not important. It would probably be easier to invent a new Internet than to compete against Microsoft on their Internet, but it seems that nobody is willing to do their own thing except the USA, so that means it is better to get out of there completely and find a new job in some other sector.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 23:55 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I live in oil rich Alberta, it is the second largest source of proven oil in the world, and although the USA is our friend, we do not agree on everything. I hate Microsoft from one point of view but from another point of view Microsoft is not important. It would probably be easier to invent a new Internet than to compete against Microsoft on their Internet, but it seems that nobody is willing to do their own thing except the USA, so that means it is better to get out of there completely and find a new job in some other sector.

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

Again, people hate MS cause it's the biggest and has the most influence. I don't care what you all say about why you hate it...my take is that, even though it is considered a monopoly, there are currently PLENTY of choices for you all to use. LINUX...etc. Free. What could be better? I just don't understand.

Just because companies are "locked in" to MS and so are organizations that have used it, they are not really locked in. There is choice, and they will decide when and if to convert...MS has nothing to do with this.

MS does employ a lot of people, and I for one in the IT field don't get paid by anything coming out of the LINUX camp, as far as I know. I don't get paid by MS, but their OS being attacked every day causes work for me. I like that. Yes, it's a waste, but it keeps me employed.

One last time, if you don't like MS, feel free to use other, open source stuff and have a nice day. It's all about choice. Stop the hating, start the converting.

Reply Score: 0

?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

good thing you euro weenies cant vote over here and therefore what you think doesnt matter. As a matter of fact, you dont matter. you are just one person and what you think means nothing. The people who can vote disagree and fortunately what they think matters.

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

What are you onabout? LOL

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Hate America eh?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

A big problem on the internet, a lot of times you can't tell who is trolling to antagonise people or who actually believe such xenophobic nonsense

Reply Score: 0

Uh?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I like America. Especially Argentina and Canada.

Funny how many people think that America is a country... ;)

SCNR

Reply Score: 0

RE: Uh?
by Gryzor on Thu 20th Oct 2005 17:40 UTC in reply to "Uh?"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

Funny how many people think that America is a country... ;)

that, my friend, comes from the fact that US of A. citizens, have no idea that there's a world and other countries around them, thus they use the term American as if they were the only ones in "America". Not only they are not the only ones, they are the most ignorant regarding General Culture of the rest of the world, and genies in their OWN culture. (Ask a citizen of the US of A what is the name of the river that crosses state "xx" and he'll know, now ask what the capital of Polland is and they will say ... errr. Brazil?"

(You may be about to mod me down, but this HAPPENED to me. The exact same question.)

Needless to say, the whole room was laughing out loud... and I've heard such stories many times (-> been involved with international student programs).

US of A citizens... grab a copy of Encarta (Made by/for/in the US of A btw) and learn "something". We -the rest of the world- are not asking too much... are we?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Uh?
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Uh?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Funny how many people think that America is a country... ;)

that, my friend, comes from the fact that US of A. citizens, have no idea that there's a world and other countries around them, thus they use the term American as if they were the only ones in "America". Not only they are not the only ones, they are the most ignorant regarding General Culture of the rest of the world, and genies in their OWN culture. (Ask a citizen of the US of A what is the name of the river that crosses state "xx" and he'll know, now ask what the capital of Polland is and they will say ... errr. Brazil?"

(You may be about to mod me down, but this HAPPENED to me. The exact same question.)

Needless to say, the whole room was laughing out loud... and I've heard such stories many times (-> been involved with international student programs).

US of A citizens... grab a copy of Encarta (Made by/for/in the US of A btw) and learn "something". We -the rest of the world- are not asking too much... are we?


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


Then you have noting to fear. Why sweat it? Nice generalizations, also. Those come in very handy when everyone around you thinks the same way and hears the same stereotypes. Do you actually consider yourself superior in some way? I think you do. You are just as foolish and arrogant as those you are trying to portray.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Uh?
by Gryzor on Thu 20th Oct 2005 17:41 UTC in reply to "Uh?"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

Funny how many people think that America is a country... ;)

that, my friend, comes from the fact that US of A. citizens, have no idea that there's a world and other countries around them, thus they use the term American as if they were the only ones in "America". Not only they are not the only ones, they are the most ignorant regarding General Culture of the rest of the world, and genies in their OWN culture. (Ask a citizen of the US of A what is the name of the river that crosses state "xx" and he'll know, now ask what the capital of Polland is and they will say ... errr. Brazil?"

(You may be about to mod me down, but this HAPPENED to me. The exact same question.)

Needless to say, the whole room was laughing out loud... and I've heard such stories many times (-> been involved with international student programs).

US of A citizens... grab a copy of Encarta (Made by/for/in the US of A btw) and learn "something". We -the rest of the world- are not asking too much... are we?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Uh?
by Smartpatrol on Thu 20th Oct 2005 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Uh?"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the problem is that you guys value useless information too much. World geography is not that useful simple question can an African Pygmy go through life not knowing where Tasmania is? or that Warsaw is the capital of Poland?(no i didn't look it up) All signs point to yes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Uh?
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Uh?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Now that is a funny argument. You're defending your ignorance by saying that a pygmy can go through life without knowing where Tasmania is. Is your lifestyle similar to a pygmys? Ah well, I suppose it worked for the president.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Uh?
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 23:59 UTC in reply to "Uh?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I like America. Especially Argentina and Canada.

Funny how many people think that America is a country... ;)

SCNR
----------------------------

It is. The ones you mentioned are third world (at best).

Reply Score: 0

war
by Hugo on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:08 UTC
Hugo
Member since:
2005-07-06

When it comes to war there are three things you do:
1) Support side A
2) Support side B
3) Be like Switzerland and STFU

Apply as you want to Bush/Usa, Saddam/Iraq.

Reply Score: 1

Americans are....
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

REALLY, REALLY IGNORANT! They learn history from comic books and cartoons instead of from history books.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Americans are....
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:21 UTC in reply to "Americans are...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Hey, at least Americans can read. They also know how to use capital letters.

Euro weenies can't read and when you tell them about history they wet themselves in fear.

Do you see how productive that was? Good job! you have raised the caliber of debate on this forum.

Reply Score: 0

Facts
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:23 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

One thing is apparent in this particular argument after reading all these posts. It boils down to this “We hate American government; synonymous with the American people(America’s government is its people) and anything we can do to hurt the country or take away from it since we can’t compete fairly at any other level” and “We want to provide antagonists of America like Syria, Iran, and China control of a powerful resource because yet again it can damages America” also more importantly “We as Europeans say we are friends of America but stab them in their back any chance we get”. I am not surprised there are so many that have such a blind hatred for me and my country, what does surprise me is that the hatred affects their very own cognitive reasoning skills and poisons any valuable technical discussion on the issue. People that otherwise get along fine in technical situations.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Facts
by smitty on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:30 UTC in reply to "Facts"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

I think the real issue is that people fear America. We basically do whatever we want and don't care what happens to anyone else, and that scares other people. Polls show that most people fear American attacks more than Bin Laden/fundamentalists.

Plus, no one likes a winner. That's why everyone roots for the underdog.

Finally, there is a lot of hypocrisy in America. Everywhere else as well, but people tend to ignore their own hypocrisy and focus on others.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Facts
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Facts"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

Well if that’s the case then we are in real trouble. People in the world aren't receiving the proper education about America then. We have always done whatever we wanted from the beginning of this country. No one complained when the cold war was going on and now that that is done we are somehow magically turned into a hegemonic country? America doesn’t change that fast. People need to study history a little closer (keeping in mind the context of the times) from that anyone can derive what America stands for and what its values are.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Facts
by smitty on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Facts"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

While we've always done what we wanted, America wasn't really considered a power until WW2. Until then we were just a midlevel country on the other side of the world that most people ignored. After WW2 the choice was clear - you either supported America or the USSR. And given that choice, America seemed like a savior. But now the choice is different - America or your own country, because no one is threatening it, except for possibly America. And given that choice, most people choose their own country, even when they live in places like Iran.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Facts
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Facts"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

I fail to see your point. There are very few countries on the planet that have anything to fear from America, those that do know why. This logic that somehow we area threat to the EU and that because of that fallacious belief they somehow have something in common with countries like Iran? North Korea? mind boggling. Again it’s not that surprising given the behavior of most European countries towards Hitler in the years leading up to WWII they are truly the “Why can’t we all get along” conglomerate.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Facts
by smitty on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Facts"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

You are missing the point. The point is that countries have nothing to fear AT ALL, except for America. We are the only plausible threat that still exists.

Are we really going to start bombing Paris tomorrow? Of course not. But neither is anyone else, and we are the only ones who even have that capability.

We Americans assume that the only world threat is that of terrorists, because they are the only ones who can attack us (everyone else would instantly be killed in a nuclear counterattack). But in other countries, the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is considered quite small. Small enough that the chance of some crazy American deciding to destroy their entire country sounds more likely, even though it actually isn't (except in maybe a few countries like Iran).

Like it or not, people around the world aren't very worried about some lone bombman. They are worried about a country that doesn't seem to care about them and has the ability to kill them all.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Facts
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Facts"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

You highlight an important ideological difference between Americans, Europeans and the rest of the world. Europeans are only concerned with what happened within their own borders and perhaps EU borders. Oh sure they fawn concern for other places in the world but ultimately they are short sighted when it comes to global power politics. In other words they can’t see the forest for the trees. They complain that our media is biased have you ever seem theirs? I have, Its un-friggin believably bias against the US. Germany for instance has laws that limit outside television programming to 30% you think in that 30% any of it is news with a different perspective?

if people trully believe that we are any kind of threat to anyone other then those that wish harm on us then they are sick.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Facts
by Gryzor on Thu 20th Oct 2005 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Facts"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

Polls show that most people fear American attacks more than Bin Laden/fundamentalists. I don't know about these polls, but one thing's for sure. US of America Citizens are SCARED the hell out of everybody. Keep closing borders and imposing more and more visas to restrict the "terrorists" to enter you borders...

... like it's gonna make any difference.

Can't you see? You do what you want, but the rest of the world is finally realizing that it doesn't care... we/I don't care. Do whatever you want, as long.. but please, stop trying to sell Freedom when you can't control you own dammed border.

Reply Score: 1

....
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Yeah I'm a rich idiot.

They are all unstable, because power currupts individuals.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I don't mind America being unstable, but there is a limit. Don't get to stupid!

Reply Score: 0

Smartpatrol
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

In your analysis thou, you left one thing out, you spoke from just one sided viewpoint and seemed judge your side lacking error of any kind and its all the fault of the euros, wheres the counterbalance or do you view everything except the US as wrong and the US all innocent?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Smartpatrol
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:44 UTC in reply to "Smartpatrol"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

My intent was an American viewpoint of the comments of this article. It started out immediately as “America sucks we hate you” not “hey these are the reasons as an EU citizen, I think we should share control of the internet”. The whole theme of the control grab has been “we are entitled to something we have no right to” Should the US demand control of the Government backed rail system in Europe? Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Another thing is that I meant that most Canadians are friends and family of the USA, but personally I'm rich and corrupt, so I would be just as happy to deal with China.

Reply Score: 0

How about paying the US back?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Every country enjoys the internet. If other countries want it how about paying the US back for what it cost us then you can do what you want with it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: How about paying the US back?
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:41 UTC in reply to "How about paying the US back?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Every country enjoys the internet. If other countries want it how about paying the US back for what it cost us then you can do what you want with it.
--------

How about paying back all the countrys that contributed to it first?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

How about paying back all the countrys that contributed to it first?

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

It was paid up front. Called helping europe during ww2.

END OF DISCUSSION! OH! -Andrew Dice Clay

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

As I grow older I find how corrupt I am, and how much less of a dreamer I am, or someone who cares for anybody other than family and friends. Give me a shot gun and I will blow off Sadams head and be done with it. I will also blow off Bushes head and be done with it, Bill Gates too. I mean it.

I will only get richer as time goes on because that is how it works. I don't care about the USA nor the next province of BC or Alberta. I don't care about the city. I live on an acreage.

All I'm trying to say is that power currupt people. Take it from someone who is corrupt as hell.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:51 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

" I will also blow off Bushes head and be done with it"

I hope you really live in Canada. If there is one thing you can't say in the US, you just said it.
you ip say "ALBERTA CALGARY SHAW COMMUNICATIONS INC"
so i guess it is, otherwise the secret service will be visiting you.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

errm, I thought it was said it was us Euros who were accused of not having freespeech and that was on reason only the US should have control??

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

a threat to kill the president (or anyone) is hardly free speech. the poster also said "I mean it" so it wasn't meant as a joke

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous (IP: 155.41.133.---)
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think you find very few non-trolls would support such a comment

and even thou I never said, I apologise, as the people who type euro-weenies they do it to rile people up

Reply Score: 0

Smartpatrol
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It would be but then you are grouping all troll people and forgetting the sensible comments and how the internet developed through internation effort

It is the same as f--k you, we're american comments, we own all your euroweenies

While ignoring the sensible american comments, so you are showing as much bias as the dumb comments

Reply Score: 0

RE: Smartpatrol
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:56 UTC in reply to "Smartpatrol"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

It would be but then you are grouping all troll people and forgetting the sensible comments and how the internet developed through internation effort

Most of those comments were arguments to support a position that Europe is somehow entitled to the internet. None (or very few) that i have seen were geared towards finding common ground. Just another typical America basing thread "nothing to see here! move along..."

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I own a couple houses in Calgary, yes, and one in BC, and an acreage outside of Calgary. The secret service will get their ass bitten off by my 120 lbs dog. I also have guns, so I'm not too worried. Alberta is a lot like Texas.

Reply Score: 0

Groan...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 20:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

One govt sticking it's arse into the workings of the internet is bad enough. Severl hundred will be absolute hell.

If the UN is the model by which the net will soon be regulated then I quit.

Reply Score: 0

Smartpatrol
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

So what you are saying, you are just ignoring any viewpoints that don't agree with your position and not actually give them any consideration

Know one has said its entitled full stop but it should be under a independent non-govt control

as far bashing, well your countrymen supply hell off a lot of ammo

Reply Score: 0

RE: Smartpatrol
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:12 UTC in reply to "Smartpatrol"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

So what you are saying, you are just ignoring any viewpoints that don't agree with your position and not actually give them any consideration

Never said that just noticed a trend...Hate America first .....logical discussion pending....

Know one has said its entitled full stop but it should be under a independent non-govt control

WHY! You prove my point where are the logical arguments towards this? I haven’t read one logical reason from any of the nay sayers on this site to compel me to change my mind on the contrary posts here have only reaffirmed my belief that the US should maintain control of the DNS servers. What you people don't realize is that it’s technical Americans like us you need to convince. We are the ones that can influence our government officials.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Smartpatrol
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:12 UTC in reply to "Smartpatrol"
Anonymous Member since:
---

well you are British, so i won't be as harsh on you.

this is the position of many of my fellow posters:
a) we like the net as it is
b) we dont want to be under EU and epsp UN control
c) if you want to change it and have EU/UN control start your own DNS and IP systems. No one is stopping you

what the EU/UN posters says is
a) we dont like it becasue it is under US control
b) we want it under EU / UN control
c) we wont start our own we want the one that is being used right now.

point (c) sounds alot like a child who won't be happy with another toy that is the same, they want the toy that that kid is playing with and nothing else will do.


lets hear your arguments.

Reply Score: 0

Let's trade...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I propose the US trades it's absolute control of the internet for a permanant seat with veto power in OPEC. ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Let's trade...
by smitty on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:07 UTC in reply to "Let's trade..."
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

OPEC isn't nearly as important as the internet. You're always going to find OPEC countries cheating because oil is all they have and making seperate arrangements will help them out. Plus, Canada and Russia have a huge chunk of the worlds oil anyway, and they aren't part of OPEC.

Reply Score: 1

v ...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:02 UTC
...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Alberta has enough oil to supply the entire world for the next 15 years, or else to just supply Canada for the next 120 years. NAFTA means that the oil is a North America product rather than an Alberta product, but I say screw NAFTA. I want free oil.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Let's trade...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I was being a smartass...

Reply Score: 0

smartpatrol
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If you don't view the US as one of the prime threats to the world you have not being keeping up with current events outside the US media, the US is viewed as more of a threat then Iran & Korea, especially with a religious fundemental crackpot in charge of your army, who will attack another country on a pair of stiched up lies, who will not join others to help with environmental issues and have a do as I say or f--k you attuitude

Reply Score: 0

RE: smartpatrol
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:14 UTC in reply to "smartpatrol"
Anonymous Member since:
---

basiclly the US is a threat becasue it doesnt adhere to your ideas. brilliant.

Reply Score: 0

RE: smartpatrol
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:16 UTC in reply to "smartpatrol"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

Like i have previously stated there are a huge number of people such as yourself that have lost touch with reality. If you truly believe that we are a greater threat to world peace then the likes of North Korea then you are seriously deranged or just extremely ignorant, stupid or all of the above.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: smartpatrol
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE: smartpatrol"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Like i have previously stated there are a huge number of people such as yourself that have lost touch with reality. If you truly believe that we are a greater threat to world peace then the likes of North Korea then you are seriously deranged or just extremely ignorant, stupid or all of the above.
-----------------------

Smartpatrol, that post could very well be turned right back on to you, by not believing the US is the biggest threat then you and people like you have lost touch with reality. If you don't believe that then you are seriously deranged or just extremely ignorant, stupid or all off the above

Yes your are more dangerous then Korea, full stop, you are a war mongering country of the worst kind, you have pushed your nose in everywhere, you have brought down govts due to not liking them, threatened, supported terrorists, killed 1000s of innocents, lied to start wars

has Korea done this, no

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: smartpatrol
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: smartpatrol"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes your are more dangerous then Korea, full stop, you are a war mongering country of the worst kind, you have pushed your nose in everywhere, you have brought down govts due to not liking them,

After organizations they were harboring attacked us and were warned to turn out them out or be attacked. The Taliban would be still in existence if they complied. Of course no one misses them except the various islamo-facist terrorist groups in the region. We haven't liked Iran, North Korea for decades yet they still exist and are still threatening peaceful nations in their repective regions.

threatened, supported terrorists, killed 1000s of innocents,

3000 Innocents died on 9/11/01 intentionally by the act of madmen. 1000’s of civilians have died in Iraq yes not intentionally as regrettable casualties of military conflict. Yet even more thousands have died by the same people that murdered the 3000 on 9/11/01 see the difference?

lied to start wars

Lied to start wars…hmmm.. now this is puzzling my memory isn’t the best but I seem to recall that the issue of WMD was over 13 years old and Iraq was subject to compliance with UN resolutions and was given a few hundred opportunities at least to do so these things he agreed too during the closing of hostilities of the first gulf war(UN action). I also seem to recall a “comply or else” clause within these UN mandates. So help me understand you somehow think there is a lie somewhere? Whether WMD was found or not doesn’t matter the process for disarmament by Saddams government wasn’t followed as per the agreement. Your just mad that “or else” finally happened.


has Korea done this, no

No, not in other countries since the early 50’s but they have starved to death over 2 million of their own citizens. By your logic this is ok for North Korea to do this and ultimately it was okay for Hitler to do the same there are quite a few people alive today that are glad we were “ War mongers” then…imagine that. Now North Korea has nuclear weapons who is next on the list to die? A few million Japanese? South Koreans? If the US has a say in it no one will. I guess for you people threats are only issues to be dealt with after they happen or after a few million people die.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

We are cowboys though, so we like to party, except that the USA if being idiots by not supporting NAFTA, so we are actually going to be shipping to China in 2007, a large part of our oil, which will be the largest supply in the world by that time.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

America is just as corrupt as North Korea, but America has more money, so that makes a huge difference in the way they are portrayed. End of story.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If you want to see for yourself than have America and North Korea trade economies.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 00:18 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

If you want to see for yourself than have America and North Korea trade economies.

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

Why don't we just have the leaders arm-wrestle instead? I don't want to go hungry like all those poor souls in N.Korea.

Reply Score: 0

smartpatrol
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If you don't view the US as one of the prime threats to the world you have not being keeping up with current events outside the US media, the US is viewed as more of a threat then Iran & Korea, especially with a religious fundemental crackpot in charge of your army, who will attack another country on a pair of stiched up lies, who will not join others to help with environmental issues and have a do as I say or f--k you attuitude

Reply Score: 0

....
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:19 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The end result of that experiment. Welcome back Hitler.

Reply Score: 0

v ...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:22 UTC
RE: ...
by smitty on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:28 UTC in reply to "..."
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Umm, no.

Some of Saddam's accomplishments are really pretty impressive - except for the fact that he IS evil. He doesn't give a crap if millions of people die.

On the other hand, Bush has done basically nothing in his life except coast off his father's wealth and fame. But I'd still rather have Bush, who is incompetent but good-hearted than Saddam, who is much more competent but evil.

If you want to compare Bush to someone try a Saudi Prince or the French President.

Reply Score: 1

The internet is free.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The internet is free and belongs in the hands of the people at large, not any government separate and above the people.

Reply Score: 0

This is just insane
by Emil on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:40 UTC
Emil
Member since:
2005-06-29

This thread shows how vocal and agressive idiots are. They share same level of idiocy on both sides. It should be a sane thread with technical merits about spliting the ROOTs servers across the world, and we have "It's my prrrrrrrresiousssse. You can't have it. My own." talk from one side, and "You're just a bunch of Bush-ass-licking loosers".

This makes me both sick and sad.

The Internet is a Network Of Networks. I have a LAN network in my house, it's connected to my ISP network, wich is connected to the bigger network. You get the idea.

US did some ground work on the idea of global network. So did others. We have exchanged our knowledge. Now the Internet is a good of all the people. It's not like US tax payers pay my ISP bills.

Again, people. You throwing away everything that makes you different from an animals like ideas and ability to share your mind with others. You prefer to bite and hit, bash without looking.

Animals.

Reply Score: 2

Saddam
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

One thing Saddam did, was keep the country from civil war and stop religious groups from gaining power

And Smartpatrol, you mentioned WW2 and why didn't everyone stop Hitler sooner, may I remind you that Europe rather then sitting on the sidelines for most of WW1, lost millions and millions of young people, there countrys were devestated, there economys due to the loss of life and war was broken and you actually ask why they did not rush headlong into another war and try and not try peaceful means?
another reason is that the needed to rearm?

Can you imagine millions dying and then asking your people to go to war again straight away? can, no then maybe you understand why there was not a rush into and made it is not a issue that should be sneared at

Reply Score: 0

RE[18]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

On a individual basis I doubt anyone hates Americans (unless its a very loud fat tourists) its the same old story of the way the govt operates, again after 9/11 you had a lot of goodwill but then you proceded to flush it all down the toilet for some daft reason

Reply Score: 0

Why?
by Edward on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:57 UTC
Edward
Member since:
2005-09-17

The Bush administration recently raised objections to the proposed addition of .xxx as a red-light district for pornographers

This would be a great idea that way when someones kid is looking up stuff on the whitehouse, they won't type in a certain adress & get a porn site.

Reply Score: 1

U.N. should control the Internet
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 22:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I believe the U.N. should get control of the internet. Over the past 50 years they've done a marvellous job of getting rid of dictators, preventing genocide and standing up and speaking out when countries want to block sites with the words 'freedom' and 'democracy'.

We all will be better of if unelected and well meaning bureaucrats get to spend our money and control what we can read and see. It's for our own good you see.

Reply Score: 0

RE[18]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 22:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

On a individual basis I doubt anyone hates Americans (unless its a very loud fat tourists) its the same old story of the way the govt operates, again after 9/11 you had a lot of goodwill but then you proceded to flush it all down the toilet for some daft reason

Reply Score: 0

Wow
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 22:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Haven't seen a thread blow up like this since that criticism of Haiku by Eugenia.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Wow
by Smartpatrol on Wed 19th Oct 2005 22:18 UTC in reply to "Wow"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

Its a touchy subject

Reply Score: 1

!
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 22:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

3000 Innocents died on 9/11/01 intentionally by the act of madmen. 1000’s of civilians have died in Iraq yes not intentionally as regrettable casualties of military conflict. Yet even more thousands have died by the same people that murdered the 3000 on 9/11/01 see the difference?
------------------------------


Regrettable, well thats Ok, makes everything fine,hunky dorrie, thats 1000s of people have died IN A COUNTRY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11

Do you remember the IRA? the got funding out of the US
Taliban, errrmm, you funded them aswell

Reply Score: 0

RE: !
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 22:34 UTC in reply to "!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

i like how the US funded to taliban. have any proof? nope? the us funded the northern alliance. go read a book dumbass.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: !
by smitty on Wed 19th Oct 2005 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE: !"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

The US funded just about everyone in the region that was against the Soviets. I'm not sure the Taliban even existed back then, but I'm sure we funded many of the people who joined it.

Was it a wise policy? In the long run, it would appear not. On the other hand, we have no way of knowing what would have happened if we hadn't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: !
by Scott on Wed 19th Oct 2005 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE: !"
Scott Member since:
2005-09-11

Yeah, we know that. The government doesn't try to hide this. In fact, it's very well known since we were all given the facts by the aggressive media during the campaign against the Taliban. That's where you got your information, correct?

Reply Score: 1

RE: !
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 00:28 UTC in reply to "!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

3000 Innocents died on 9/11/01 intentionally by the act of madmen. 1000’s of civilians have died in Iraq yes not intentionally as regrettable casualties of military conflict. Yet even more thousands have died by the same people that murdered the 3000 on 9/11/01 see the difference?
------------------------------


Regrettable, well thats Ok, makes everything fine,hunky dorrie, thats 1000s of people have died IN A COUNTRY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11

===========================================

Is it only me, or do others get tired of people constantly linking IRAQ to 9/11. US did not say Iraq was directly tied to 9/11. Unless I'm wrong, IRAQ happend because the UN mandates were not followed AND it appeared that Saddam was a threat (he was acting as one, big tough guy that he was - nice hole you were found in).

Anyway, it's hard to really know what to believe anymore. You read 2 different papers, you get 2 different viewpoints. Believe what your heart tells you, I guess.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 23:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

bhaw whawww :stamps foot: UN did not agree with me invading a country for any valid reasons, so I am taking my ball home. - the US really needs to grow up (some of you anyway, atleast some of you are sensible)

Reply Score: 0

LOL
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 23:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

personally I'd like to see my country become more isolationist and let all of you rot in your own little cesspools. I'm tired of my tax dollars funding the world bank, the UN, and every time some country has a problem that we "HAVE TO" send money because of the little panty wipe democrats needing some form of fulfillment for their enlightenment. If we called in all of our debts since WWII we wouldn't have the financial load we have right now and most of Europe would still be third world. Believe it or not there is going to be a future and you better believe it is going to be an American future.

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

Do you realise you've just made one of the biggest gaffs in all these postings, they post is so full of BS it is impossible to know where to start.

Can we label this specimen Exhibit A as, it clearly shows everythign that is wrong the US person today

Reply Score: 0

Proxy wars
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 23:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Wow, this is quite some thread.

Perhaps what it really shows is that the internet "ownership" issue (it isn't about ownership, imho, but that is another story) is being felt by many Americans as a proxy for all their hurt and anger at a world they find so hard to understand. Yup, the old school atlas has suddenly come alive to reveal real foreign countries with real people in them.

In which case, fat chance of anything sensible coming from the conference in Tunisia.

Reply Score: 0

RE[21]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 23:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Sought to poison your efforts in Invading a foreign sovereign country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD


Damm, how could they do that, the Bar Stewards!

Well you certainly showed them didn't you! what is the civilian count and how many bodys bags have being sent home?
How many more terrorists being created

You're a weird lot! even when you've being proved wrong, you still steer the same old course

Reply Score: 0

RE: RE[22]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 23:46 UTC in reply to " RE[21]: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yeah, but a dictator tyrant was taken out of office. Too bad we can't bring back the lives of the people he massacred.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: RE[23]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE: RE[22]: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Yeah, but a dictator tyrant was taken out of office. Too bad we can't bring back the lives of the people he massacred"

...Massacred with weapons that US sold him. Let's not forget that.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: RE[24]: Geez...
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 01:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: RE[23]: Geez..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Massacred with weapons that US sold him. Let's not forget that.

Actually the US did not sell Saddam weapons we secured loans for him to stop Iran from overrunning Iraq. This is how it happended the US gave the go ahead for agricultural loans to be givin to Iraq these funds were diverted to buy weapons. Wanna know who the biggest suppliers of weapons to Saddam were the European nations most notably France.

Reply Score: 0

Oh oh oh oh oh
by Anonymous on Wed 19th Oct 2005 23:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I say US goes to war with EU. Then we'll get to the bottom of this. Come on, punks, put up your dukes. ;)

Seriously, though, this is perhaps the longest run of childish bickering I've seen in quite some time. Grow up people.

"This is my toy!"
"Nuh uh!! It's MINE!"
"It should be MINE!!"
"Mine mine mine mine... Jimmy's a weeeeeeener!!"

Sheesh...

Reply Score: 0

stars and stripes flag burned every
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 00:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

ah but remember the US doesn't care about being massacred by dictators - its supports them, fosters them and arms them. saddam was armed by the US (rumsfeld handshake anyone?) - and so was bin laden.

if the usa wanted to take out undemocratic monster they could start in kuwait, saudi, ...

the problem is that the american public are thick - and can't hold their ruling classes to account.

is there a country in the world where the stars and stripes flag isn't burned every day?

Reply Score: 0

News Flash
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 00:19 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If you don't live in America, you're not important.

Reply Score: 0

Ownership of & Influencing the Internet -
by Pelly on Thu 20th Oct 2005 00:50 UTC
Pelly
Member since:
2005-07-07

I believe that any nation/group thinking they can claim ownership or have a dramatic influence over the internet is ridiculous, at best. No single entity is in the position of being able to claim ownership.

As Mick Dundee said in Crocodile Dundee - "It's like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog," during a discussion of land ownership. Sorry for the movie analogy; couldn't help it, but it seemed to fit in, here.

I believe the absolute most that ANY nation can do is to make attempts at 'local laws' regarding the sections of the internet that travel/reside on the servers & systems on their soil. Much as they do now.

The UN may be in a position to make 'suggestions,' but that's about it.

My two cents...

Reply Score: 1

Call for action
by Scott on Thu 20th Oct 2005 01:34 UTC
Scott
Member since:
2005-09-11

OSnews, please shut down this thread of comments. This is simply sad.

Reply Score: 1

democracy, lardbags and smoke screens
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 02:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

430 comments. Is that a record?

Democracy and freedom are positive words. But watch how the Americans use that fact to their advantage whether in the context of the Internet or other matters (Iraq?). Maybe that's why the US in other parts of the world is known as "United Bluff".

In the end there not much the US can do if the rest of the world says enough. Which I hope it does. Not because that's going to make the Internet run better. It won't. It runs very well asis. But - for democracy.

Reply Score: 0

Just do it, let history sort it out.
by The1stImmortal on Thu 20th Oct 2005 03:53 UTC
The1stImmortal
Member since:
2005-10-20

The internet and computing community is full of examples where something was *just done* and history was left to sort out the winners from the losers. Evidence the OS wars (from way back to the current situation), competing protocols, processors, and so on. Open source is full of examples of people not liking an existing system, so implementing their own because it was too difficult to change the existing one. If the UN wants "control" (really, more an administrative role) of the 'net, it should just do it, and let the worlds nations and people choose where their loyalties lie. If the US system wins out in the end, so be it, if the UN (or other international system) is the victor, well done. Heck, with IPv6 growing now it's entirely possible for both to exist alongside each other. Stop talking, start doing.

Reply Score: 1

v bastards
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 04:11 UTC
RE: bastards
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 05:47 UTC in reply to "bastards"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You are a total idiot and illiterate.
Study some History.
Then you'll maybe know that:
1)The US are a young country and most of everything which counts was invented before your country even existed.
2)You wouldn't even exist without Europe, and especially Italy (I am sure in your ignorance you have never heard of a man called Cristoforo Colombo), Spain and England.
3)Your arrogance knows no limits. See what you did to native Americans (the only *real* ones)
4)Still nowadays most of everything good, ethic, useful is invented outside the US.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: bastards
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 07:01 UTC in reply to "RE: bastards"
Anonymous Member since:
---

2)You wouldn't even exist without Europe, and especially Italy (I am sure in your ignorance you have never heard of a man called Cristoforo Colombo), Spain and England.

Ok I just had to reply to this one. Colombo did not discover America he landed on the island of Hispanola which includes the Dominican Republic and Haiti. The continents of North and South America were named for Amerigo Vespucci. But he didn't discover them either the true discoverers were the Asiatic peoples who crossed the land bridge and became the Native American peoples.

Also since everyone here is giving their two cents here's mine. 1 Americans are rude, yep we can be loud and boisterous and self absorbed. I'll give you that one when you admit that Europeans are arrogant snobs who look down on the rest of the world as beneath them.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: bastards
by lezard on Thu 20th Oct 2005 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: bastards"
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

[i]Europeans are arrogant snobs [i]
The funny thing is that only US people treat us as arrogant, not the rest of the world. Don't you say that just because we disagree with you ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: bastards
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 08:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: bastards"
Anonymous Member since:
---

No your snobs and are just as self obsessed. Plus lets not go into the rest of the world thing. There are many places that Europeans are viewed nastily. Don't think that just because I called you a snob means I don't like you. You can disagree with me all you like, it makes for good conversation.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: bastards
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 11:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: bastards"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Nah. Europeans don't look down on the rest of the world, just America.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: bastards
by Scott on Thu 20th Oct 2005 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: bastards"
Scott Member since:
2005-09-11

ROFL... Now THAT's funny as hell. ;) Europeans (I'll leave out specifics) are just as proud and fretful as, let's see, Chinese, Russians, Americans, Canadians, etc... the list goes on.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: bastards
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 07:18 UTC in reply to "RE: bastards"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Colombo did not discover America he landed on the island of Hispanola which includes the Dominican Republic and Haiti. The continents of North and South America were named for Amerigo Vespucci."

Another Italian.

"But he didn't discover them either the true discoverers were the Asiatic peoples who crossed the land bridge and became the Native American peoples."

I can easily agree about that. Except that it is totally irrelevant to the existence of the US.

"Also since everyone here is giving their two cents here's mine. 1 Americans are rude, yep we can be loud and boisterous and self absorbed. I'll give you that one when you admit that Europeans are arrogant snobs who look down on the rest of the world as beneath them."

Not sure about that. What I am pretty sure about is that the US could be a loved country, if:

1)The Constitution didn't give too much power to the President
2)You didn't choose too often the wrong leaders (but you have had great ones as well)

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: bastards
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: bastards"
Anonymous Member since:
---

1)The Constitution didn't give too much power to the President

The President really doesn't have that many powers. The Supreme Court or Congress can override almost anything he does.

The president cannot declare war only congress
The president cannot enact law only congress
The president must get approval of his cabinet from congress
The president must get approval for appointing of Judges to the federal
bench. He gets to submit names thats it.
The Supreme Court decides if any and all laws or actions by the president or congress are consitutional

These are just some of the things that keep the president in check.

Reply Score: 0

Get it right!!!
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 05:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The news header says "Keep Internet Out of UN Control, Says US". I failed to see where it says "Keep Internet Out of EU Control, Says US". 95% of this 'USA Vs EU' bickering could have been avoided if people took the time to read

Reply Score: 0

ROTF
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 06:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

ICANN is not 100% american
All the root servers are not all american
all the technolgy involved is not 100% american (and most of those from american people actually has contibution from non americans people).
Of course USA has made a big work, but Internet wouldn't exist without those foreign contributors (and wouldn't exist either without USA)

Reply Score: 0

realityVSbooks
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 07:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

These are just some of the things that keep the president in check.

What is there to check?

Right,the info that is delivered to congres.Who delivers the info?As long as there's no info to check they (can)do almost anything anywhere.

Reply Score: 0

RE: realityVSbooks
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 07:53 UTC in reply to "realityVSbooks"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I see the point you are trying to get at here. But at all times during what I am thinking the turmoil you are alluding to there were documents. Plus yes I do believe many of them were either doctored or slanted.

Many people don't seem to understand how US agencies work the CIA is not an extension of the president or run by him. The CIA's charter is foreign espionage/survelliance/counter terroism. The CIA briefs the president only. The people who technically run the CIA are the CIA director and the Senate Intelligence Commitee. It was the SIC's job to keep the president in check. But there just a bunch of Republican ass kissers so they probably felt they had to be loyal.

There is no agency regulatory, espionagy, or judicial that the president has control over. This is one of the main reasons why American style democracies fail, most countries that try them do not understand that the executive branch of government is and must be the weakest. They still try to place to much power in the hands of their presidents.

This is an argument that we are never going to solve Americans and Europeans are always going to be at odds. America being a country of immigrants will always look with just a little distain at their mother countries that failed them. Europe will always be mad at the fact the the US surpassed them in economic and military power.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: realityVSbooks
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE: realityVSbooks"
Anonymous Member since:
---

almost nice try but sadly you got the last bit wrong
---------------
Europe will always be mad at the fact the the US surpassed them in economic and military power.
---------------
Europe is not mad at that at all, and if you look you will find actually Europe surpasses the US in Economic power.
Two we are mad at war mongering and the attitude of the US people, and being slagged off for not getting into a war for the wrong reason, how can we be mad at being right?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: realityVSbooks
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 08:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: realityVSbooks"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Europe is not mad at that at all, and if you look you will find actually Europe surpasses the US in Economic power.

How much your money is worth is not a true measure of your economic power. Lets look at some stats why don't we
1. World mechandise exports by region US 794 billion EU 2901 yes the EU had more export money but remember this was the entire EU up against one country. So if we were to look at it individually no country will overtake the US in world merchandise exports.
2. World Imports by region US 1303 billion EU 2920. This basically means that the US has fewer importation needs than the EU and can better survive an economic disaster should these services or good be cut off.
3. The current US unemployment rate is 5.4% In 2004 EU rates ranges from 2.4 to 32.8%
4. The currency exchange please remember that the Euro is and internation currency so your basing the exchange rate of a combination of nations against the dollar of course the rate of exchange will go the Euro's way.

Reply Score: 0

the UN is corrupt
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 07:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

the UN is corrupt. Kofi's son is a criminal and guess who got him that job. I bet Kofi is in on it too.

they're all a buncha crooks, it needs huge restructuring.

i hate bush btw but damn hes right about this thing.

Reply Score: 0

RE: the UN is corrupt
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 07:56 UTC in reply to "the UN is corrupt"
Anonymous Member since:
---

well it could be worse, he could be speaking to god and being told to invade other countrys

Oh last word


Halliburton

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: the UN is corrupt
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 08:31 UTC in reply to "RE: the UN is corrupt"
Anonymous Member since:
---

UN is corrupt. Kofi's son is a criminal and guess who got him that job. I bet Kofi is in on it too.
------------------------------------------
well it could be worse, he could be speaking to god and being told to invade other countrys
----------------------------------------------
Having faith is worse than being a criminal?
Bringing freedom to countries, who are being abused by criminals who exchange food and drugs for oil and bribes, is worse than being the abuser who takes those bribes?

If you look from the point of view of the abusers (i.e. UN and Old Europeans) you are definitely right!

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: the UN is corrupt
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: the UN is corrupt"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Bringing freedom to countries, who are being abused by criminals who exchange food and drugs for oil and bribes, is worse than being the abuser who takes those bribes?"

I am sorry but this is an excuse nobody buys anymore. Who supported the brutal dictatorships in Southern America? (just one of the many possible examples). I don't suppose it was my granny.

Reply Score: 0

RE: the UN is corrupt
by brulle on Thu 20th Oct 2005 08:00 UTC in reply to "the UN is corrupt"
brulle Member since:
2005-09-21

> the UN is corrupt.

And the US isn't?

Just about every other country in the world is more or less corrupt, but i suppose no decent stand up american would ever go as low as to become corrupt?

I guess the US should yield control to the least corrupt country, possibly Finland, Norway, Denmark or New Zealand?

Reply Score: 1

Sad...
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 08:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

468 posts can only prove that the US have made plenty of enemies, not just Al Qaeda.

And Yet before Bush I never noticed that.

Personally I find there is still plenty to like about the American people (but not their present Government)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Sad...
by Smartpatrol on Thu 20th Oct 2005 15:33 UTC in reply to "Sad..."
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

Personally I find there is still plenty to like about the American people (but not their present Government)

For the 10 millionth time you ignorant Marxist. The American Government <u>is</u> the same as the American people. Representative government look it up!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sad...
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Sad..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

The American Government <u>is</u> the same as the American people. Representative government look it up!

No it is not our government is not a proportional representation like most other democracies. I am a democrat livinging in Ohio, my member of the house of Representatives is a republican, my senators are republican, my governor is republican, my state legislature is majority republican. I do not agree with anything the republicans stand for and did not vote for them. So technically I a US citizen have not representation in government. We do not run on instant runoff voting where your vote will switch to your next candidate we pick one and if they win they do and if not your vote is thrown away. Government of the people by the people only means the majority gets to elect it and it is not appointed.

Reply Score: 0

ICANN
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 09:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This could have being solved a few months ago, when in the US there was a chance to make ICANN fully independent but the Bush regine failed to do this and wanted to keep control off it.

If they had let ICANN be truly independent then none of this would have blown up

Reply Score: 0

So much hatred. So very sad.
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 09:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

For supposedly intelligent people I don't think I've ever been witness to so much hatred/nationalism (on ALL sides)/stupidity in a single discussion (sic) thread in all my life. You're probably the same people that invade other previously useful threads and turn them into the usual Gnome/KDE flamewars or that other favorite, "my distro's better than you distro". Whatever the issues that surround this situation, name calling, insults, nationalism and stupidty are not going to help. What an advert for humanity you lot aren't. I hope noone rings any of you while you are ironing!!

Reply Score: 0

RE: So much hatred. So very sad.
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 10:33 UTC in reply to "So much hatred. So very sad."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I find it sad too, and I said it in a post a bit above.

However this is only a reflection of reality, I am afraid.
So who hates the US?
Let me see:
1)One billion Muslims
2)The Chinese. How many are they by now?
3)The Russians (I would imagine)
4)The majority of the Western world.

That amounts to several billions. I hope this is a lesson you are not going to forget for a long time when you elect your governments.

Reply Score: 0

Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

However this is only a reflection of reality, I am afraid.
So who hates the US?
Let me see:
1)One billion Muslims
2)The Chinese. How many are they by now?
3)The Russians (I would imagine)
4)The majority of the Western world.


You realize you just aligned Europe with brutal totalitarian regimes guilty of every human rights abuse know to man…brilliant.

Reply Score: 1

lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

And he distinct religion and country. There are no muslims in USA ?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

I find it sad too, and I said it in a post a bit above.

However this is only a reflection of reality, I am afraid.
So who hates the US?
Let me see:
1)One billion Muslims
2)The Chinese. How many are they by now?
3)The Russians (I would imagine)
4)The majority of the Western world.

That amounts to several billions. I hope this is a lesson you are not going to forget for a long time when you elect your governments.

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

Now let's look at it this way:

Who moves to the US and is welcomed:
-Muslims
-Chinese
-Russians
-Others.

I work in an IT company, and I can say that I work with each of the types mentioned above. We get along. This is what the USA is and represents, so keep that in mind all you USA haters. These people come here for a reason...and that is to live their lives. THey bring their families, and although it may be a little uncomfortable for some at first, when they are in the neighborhood, we treat them as frieds. I can tell you this personally, and I see their kids playing with ours.

This is what the USA really is.

Reply Score: 0

RE:RE[3]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 11:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

""Conversely, the rest of the world is acting like having control over the internet is their *right*, which it is not."

And nethier is it your right.

"...then everyone else need to realize that *we* are relinquishing control over something that was *ours*."

Everything has started somewhere. Railroads started in Britain but you wouldnt expect the brits to exert control over american railroads, would you?
I'm not saying the UN is the right place for Internet governance but neither should it be controlled by the U.S (or any other country)."

What the hell are you talking about not our right. The internet was developed at DARPA, in the US...it is our right. Railroads can't be compared, not the same technology.

Besides with all of the anti-US atmosphere and super high beuacracy of the UN/EU, why should we relenquish control of the internet. So we can have some old crusty Belgian (no offense to Belgians) who hates US policy deny our requests for IP addresses, or have tyrant nations such as Iran have control over thing. Some of these countries that want control are the biggest perpatrators of censorship on the internet. The US doesn't do that.
I say leave it here, it's not broken, don't fix it. Besides, if the Europeans get a hold of it they're going to screw it up anyway, like they do with everything else.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]:RE[4]: Now you knowQ
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE:RE[3]: Now you knowQ"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"What the hell are you talking about not our right. The internet was developed at DARPA, in the US...it is our right. Railroads can't be compared, not the same technology."

Both are infrasturcture technologies.

"Besides with all of the anti-US atmosphere and super high beuacracy of the UN/EU, why should we relenquish control of the internet."

In reality you dont have to. The rest of the world could just disconnect from you and "the Internet" would still work. The world dont need the U.S, the U.S needs the world.

"So we can have some old crusty Belgian (no offense to Belgians) who hates US policy deny our requests for IP addresses, or have tyrant nations such as Iran have control over thing."

That's not what this is about. Try to get with the program.

"Some of these countries that want control are the biggest perpatrators of censorship on the internet. The US doesn't do that."

Are you being sarcastic? I cant tell.
Btw, veto'ing the .xxx TLD is a form of cencorship.

"I say leave it here, it's not broken"
Since ICANN isnt working as it's supposed to it's not working.

Reply Score: 0

I wonder
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 12:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I wonder what the continent of Africa has to say about Europe? Thanks for all those brutal wars? and Asia? Opium Wars anyone?

Excellent work by the French, Danes, Germans, English, Belgians.

Thank you for inventing apartheid, because apparently it is alive and well on the internet where you seggregate yourselves from everyone blaming everyone else but never looking into a mirror.

"America is arrogant"

"America did nothing in WW2--the war would have won itself"

"America does not own its own communications network built on its own soil--we'll be sending you an electric bill"

"Everyone hates America"

"The EU is a great success"

"The UN is a great success"

I voted for Ralph Nader for president of the USA. He's probably the most honest candidate--ever. The above statements are on the border of stupidity. If you agree with them, you're an over-generalizing idiot.

#1 Americans themselves are not arrogant--If you said Condoleeza Rice is arrogant, I'd agree. If you said Bush was arrogant, I'd agree. If you said they were both terrible at their jobs, I'd agree. You post all this hate against the US and call those who defend it or who don't agree with you arrogant--That's stupid. Please find people with differing points of view and learn something new.

#2 Without America's involvement in WW2, in terms of supplies given to England, England would have ran out of oil, diesel and basic materials from 1940 onward. Without US involvement in the Pacific, that entire area of the world would be speaking Japanese under the rule of a Japanese Emperor. There was no navy that could challenge them--the British had excellent battleships, but THE WORST carrier aircraft. Battleships were irrelevant in the pacific by 1942.

#3 US Taxpayer dollars paid for the development of ICANN. ICANN does not judge the content of a website and categorize it. If .xxx was enforced--who would be the ones to determine "this site is pornographic, it's domain must be changed to .xxx" Porn websites are not going to voluntarily switch to a unique domain which could be easily blocked--they want more customers and advertising. Think about this just for one moment--if that authority was given to ICANN, it wouldn't stop with just one domain. I like it the way it is.

#4 Everyone hates America: Well the BBC certainly does. Ask yourself, the next time you see one of their programs, am I watching an Opinion-Editorial or a factual news report? Most of the middle east and north Africa does because historically the US has always supported Israel, a country which these people claim does not exist. I'm not thrilled with the amount of money we give Israel--I'd rather spend it on our homeless in the USA. India and China SHOULDN'T hate the US since it's foreign investment and outsourced jobs have given both countries a massive economic boost recently.

#5 We'll see how successful Belorus is at running the EU. Self interest overrides all.

#6 The UN itself admits that it's human rights wing is a complete joke and has zero credibility. From the horses mouth: " http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4419333.stm " The Oil for Food scandal is THE BIGGEST THEFT, on the level of Nazi Gold theft, but is completely ignored by the rest of the world.

I certainly hope most other europeans do not think this way about America. Also, my family comes from Catalan, so F. U.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I wonder
by Soulbender on Thu 20th Oct 2005 14:13 UTC in reply to "I wonder"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Excellent work by the French, Danes, Germans, English, Belgians."
I fail to see how Denmark fits in that group.

Items 1, 2, 5, and 6 irrelevant for the news post.

"#3 US Taxpayer dollars paid for the development of ICANN."
Noone is questioning the U.S control over networks on it's own soil. The problem is the control it exerts over the entire Internet and thus networks not built by americans and not residing on american soil.
For all that's wrong and problematic with ICANN just read www.icannwatch.com.
Also, since ICANN is a non-profit *corporation* taxpayers money didnt really pay for it.

"#4 Everyone hates America"
It's not about hating America. It's about a single country having a high degree of control over a global infrastructure.

Reply Score: 1

There should be a new Internet
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 12:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

We should make a new internet, or seperate network with its own DNS. Keep this network away from the US. Keep it away from everyone except the chosen few.

We should put all of you morons who posted here on this thread on this 'alternate' internet so that your ramblings and blabbering bullshit stops wasting bandwidth.

There were a few good posts, most of it was all just childish bullshit.

Reply Score: 0

US controlled internet
by Anonymous on Thu 20th Oct 2005 12:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

In spite of what all the US-haters think, the United States has done a great job in their handling of the Internet. Give it to the U.N. and it will be screwed up within a year.

Reply Score: 0

This whole spat
by abdavidson on Thu 20th Oct 2005 16:07 UTC
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

It reminds me of the old, "It's *my* ball so *I* decide who plays with it."

Time to grow up...

Reply Score: 1

It stoped.
by Gryzor on Thu 20th Oct 2005 19:44 UTC
Gryzor
Member since:
2005-07-03

That is good.
Internet shouldn't be regulated the way it is. Neither Europe nor US of A (or UN) will do "better".

Make it more simple, give a ROOT DNS to each Continent. Split the IP stack among "regions" (make it EVEN) and that's it.

Reply Score: 1

Awww...
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 01:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Darn it. I was having so much fun posting responses that I did not realize you all got tired of this thread. It was a lot of fun.

At least this is an original post from me and not a reply.

WORD.

Reply Score: 0

Points of view
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 12:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

- USA provided the ground work for the Internet(ARPANET). Fair enough, but they did NOT build the whole *global* infrastructure, only domestic. Individual nations built their own networks which were attached to ARPANET. Therefor no US taxdollars were ever used to pay the *global* infrastructure of the Internet.

- US administrators did not let foreign networks to be attached to ARPANET just out of good will. US administators understood the mutual benefits of a global network.

- The biggest reason the Internet is so usefull as it is today, is due international participating in 1) infrastructure building 2) application developement (protocols and other widely used techniques).

- Detaching USA from the Internet would hurt the US more than it would hurt the rest of the world. Rest of the world would only lost the ability to contact USA, but USA would fall back to communicational stone age.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Points of view
by Anonymous on Fri 21st Oct 2005 19:03 UTC in reply to "Points of view"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"- USA provided the ground work for the Internet(ARPANET). Fair enough, but they did NOT build the whole *global* infrastructure, only domestic. Individual nations built their own networks which were attached to ARPANET. Therefor no US taxdollars were ever used to pay the *global* infrastructure of the Internet."

Yeah, but the best and oldest, most long running is in the US. The rest is a cheap copy, as usual (like most of OSS/FOSS software.

"- US administrators did not let foreign networks to be attached to ARPANET just out of good will. US administators understood the mutual benefits of a global network."

Commies, all of them.

"- The biggest reason the Internet is so usefull as it is today, is due international participating in 1) infrastructure building 2) application developement (protocols and other widely used techniques)."

The only part of the global infrastructure that is important is the one in the USA. Why? Well, if we put in laws to keep the cheap junk coming in (products) from other countries, and build it here, we could solve some unemployment problems. Therefore, no need to communicate with any foreign companies. True, prices would go up, but at least we would all have jobs to pay for it.

"- Detaching USA from the Internet would hurt the US more than it would hurt the rest of the world. Rest of the world would only lost the ability to contact USA, but USA would fall back to communicational stone age."

Well, no. If my first statement were true, then all you others would lose a valuable market to sell your wares to. The knife is sharp on the other side, too.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Points of view
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Points of view"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You sir are one clueless idiot, and you just about misunderstoond every point made in the original "Points of view" post. You're a troll, right?

Reply Score: 0

Sad
by Soulbender on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 06:35 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

It's sad that an interesting and important topic get ruined by basement dwelling losers with nothing better to do with their lives than to constantly argue about what country is better.
If you're not smart enough to understand the topic and it's implications maybe you should just shut the f--k up.

Reply Score: 1