| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
<squidink> no.
<Emil^> arcade - AMEN i mean the US only funds like what now?? 60% of the UN and all it's operations!! - those greedy bastards
<tortus> spun off at bechtel?
<arcade> (non-ironic not: Actually a lot of the Internet has been developed outside of the US ;)
<arcade> note
<tortus> i know the icaan employees could by stock at one time.
<arcade> Emil^: it's the US social responsibility to fund the UN!
<squidink> arcade: like what?
<Emil^> sure some of of it has - if the WORLD wants to give the UN control over the internet - sure!!
<Lotec> arcade, why?
<arcade> tortus: icaan?
<tortus> the keepers of the domain names
<squidink> http://www.icann.org/
<arcade> tortus: ICANN, and they're not the keepers of domain names.
<squidink> its a not for profit, afaik.
<tortus> icann. thanks
<Emil^> we need to give over control over our reserouces the the UN - after all the UN knows what's best for us
<Lotec> arcade, why is it our social responsibility to fund the UN?
<arcade> Emil^: Exactly!
<Emil^> *smile*
<squidink> The Internet Corporation for ***igned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is responsible for managing and coordinating the Domain Name System (DNS) to ensure that every address is unique and that all users of the Internet can find all valid addresses. It does this by overseeing the distribution of unique IP addresses and domain names. It also ensures that each domain name maps to the correct IP address.
<arcade> Lotec: Because it IS, of course! Just like it's the US responsibility to surrender controll over the root DNS servers to ICANN, and it's the US that is to blame when they do not intervene military fast enough .. or does it too fast.
<RainDog> Ever notice how so many countries are just blobs on the map? Wonder why they didn't pick cool shapes like the USA did.
<squidink> I say, in regards to the ICANN issue, and in the most polite way possible, **** the UN.
<RainDog> USA is like the #1 coolest shaped country.
<Lotec> Rain, Italy looks like a boot. It's memorable at least
<arcade> squidink: So do I. If the EU want to play games with DNS, then they can set up their own damn root servers and watch that noone uses them.
<RainDog> Italy's good, yeah.
<squidink> arcade: agreed.
<RainDog> Mexico has a good shape. Canada's just sitting up there like a pile of ****, though.
<arcade> squidink: The funny thing is that I really enjoyed the idea about Alternic some years ago ..
<squidink> heh.
<squidink> I don't like the idea of UN controlled internet.
<Emil^> the us - we have so much - we should turn our rescources over to the UN - they are far far smarter than us americans are
<squidink> the UN is way too politically correct.
<arcade> squidink: Same here.. but I still supported the Alternic idea .. for a while .. until I realized what chaos it would be.. but funny chaos in all cases. :)
<Lotec> Rain, Mexico would look better it we took Baja from it and added it to US
<squidink> "we like freedom of speech, as long as it isnt offensive to any of the nations on the planet, especially the ones that give us oil money"
<RainDog> Lotec, and the US would look better too. Funny, 'cause I was thinkin' about that earlier.
<squidink> America does have a cool shape, we've got a wang, Florida.
<tortus> what the internet needs right now is a babysitter, not.
<RainDog> That's not a wang, squidink. It's a FINGER!
<squidink> arcade: on the other hand im concerned with these FBI shutdowns of websites that host "questionable" content.
<Lotec> squid, that makes CA at the *** end of the country
<Emil^> americans needs to relenquish control to the UN - so they can tell us what we can and cannot publish - if there is one thing the internet is lacking is control - only the UN can give us that
<RainDog> I wonder why they didn't just make all countries round?
<Gazpacho> wait a minute... Jack Thompson is the guy who got Bodycount taken off the shelves???
<Gazpacho> THAT ****ER
<Gazpacho> now I REALLY hate him
<squidink> Lotec: california is more like a back, texas would be the ***. with louisianna being the taint.
<Lotec> Gazm you're lagged
<Gazpacho> Bodycount is one of the best albums ever
<coldstove> A question came to me. When the southern part of US get a big tragic catasrophe(like in the movie tomorrow), Mexico has any duty to accept US refugees?
<Gazpacho> Lotec: no I'm not
<arcade> squidink: I'm not that worried, as most of my warezing with questionable content goes through private channels ;D
<Lotec> cold, hahaha. Things are bad enough without having to go to Mexico
<squidink> arcade: actually, i was referring to the porn site shut downs, under the new moral police rules.
<squidink> I don't agree with any legislation of the internet, at all.
<squidink> well, maybe spam, everyone can live without spam.
<RainDog> Things could be worse than being a refugee in Mexico. Just lay around all day drinking Carte Blanca.
<Emil^> lotec - sadly if things keep going like they are??? mexico is the land of the free
<squidink> it's not as if they ever offer anything anyone wants.
<coldstove> Lotec/it's a just question for imaginary situation
<Lotec> squid, not just spam. Any fraud
<Gazpacho> squidink: the FBI can't singlehandedly shut down a web site.
<arcade> squidink: the spam problem should be solved by vigilante activities.. such as removing the kneecaps of known spammers with a blunt tool known as a "baseball bat".'
<squidink> Gazpacho: actually they can, apparently, because they have been.
<Gazpacho> squidink: no, they haven't. I think you've misunderstood
<Lotec> Do we have an op here?
<Emil^> gazpacho - just wanted to say i like your name -but i hate that spanish dish
<tortus> cold: mexico could not guarantee the safety of us citizens. their justice system is sorta broken down right now
<coldstove> tortus/it sounds funny a little bit..
<Gazpacho> squidink: they can call a site to a host's attention, and the host can make a determination whether it violates the law. or they can get the DOJ to file suit. but they can't shut it down by themselves
<tortus> coldstove: you can vacation in mexico and be ok if you stay on a beaten path
<RainDog> Hell, I've got a lifelong DREAM of living like a refugee down in Mexico.
<Gazpacho> not file suit, but press charges
<tortus> being in mexico vulnerable with no money is another story
<Gazpacho> emily16 = spammer
<Gazpacho> -Emily16- DCC send XXX-PORNO-LIBRARY.rar (60.0.125.27)
<RainDog> Did y'all unzip the file? Was it cool?
<Emil^> screw that b***tard - hijackign the 1st 4 letters of my name
<tortus> that spam thing should be solved with technology, not politicians
<Lotec> Rain, you check it for us
<squidink> Gazpacho: because of actions like that, a lot of sites have been removing content or shutting down voluntarily, i view any action like that as a slippery slope.
<RainDog> Too early for "***ual content".
<Gazpacho> tortus: it's being solved through preexisting laws, which is perfect.
<Lotec> RainDog, actually I;m immune to it. I use a Mac
<Gazpacho> squidink: actions like what?
<RainDog> Lotec, I used a Mac a couple of times. Was like a perverted PC.
<Gazpacho> the slope isn't slipping. a web site host can either shut the site down or refuse to
<squidink> in regards to content, i do not feel that the internet should be restricted in any way, with the exception of child porn, fraud, etc.
<Lotec> Rain, only cause you don't know any better
<Gazpacho> etc.?
<RainDog> ;-)
<squidink> and if they refuse, the FBI can come sieze the servers, which effectively shuts them down.
<arcade> RainDog: As long as one doesn't use that perverted "MS Windows" OS i'm happy.
<RainDog> Lotec, that's ALWAYS my excuse.
<Emil^> squidink the internet is NOT RESTRICTED!
<arcade> RainDog: Mac is almost good, it's unix based .. so :)
<Gazpacho> squidink: no, the FBI can't seize the servers.
<Lotec> Rain, if you want to see what the next version of windoze will look like, use a Mac today
<squidink> Emil^: no, its not, yet.
<squidink> Gazpacho: funny, because they have and do.
<Emil^> squid you're missing the obvious
<Gazpacho> squidink: in what case?
<squidink> Gazpacho: google it, im not a law library.
<Gazpacho> google what, exactly?
<Emil^> the only people who want to restrict the net are countries like china, iran, n. korea
<RainDog> Anyway, back to that EXCELLENT idea of having the UN take charge of the internet.
<squidink> Gazpacho: try the phrase "fbi shuts down website"
<arcade> Anywyas, it's immensively difficult to restrict the internet as long as we use public IP addresses or make nice NAT's. I mean, it's not a problem to make a private overlay network on top of the internet for friends and friends' friends.
<Emil^> we want to make the net free!!!!
<Emil^> but noooooooooooooo
<Emil^> some people want the UN to control/regulgate us
<squidink> Emil^: thats not true, a lot of neo cons would love to see restrictions on the net, and the french of course, they dont want any nazi or anti french content, etc.
<Lotec> Emil, a lot of the EU would prohibit any site with a swastika on it
<squidink> indeed.
<arcade> Lotec: Except of course, if it's a heavily anti-nazi history site.
<Emil^> lotec - well on that issue - i stand corrected - i'm just greatful it's us who set the restictions - not CHINA
<Emil^> i'm not a fan of nazi's
<tortus> do you have any idea how restrictive the eu is on advertising? if the un gets control of the internet, the only reasonable thing to do, for a business, would be to follow the most restrictive law of the most restrictive nation, since they would be exposed to suits if they did not
<Lotec> Emil, the thing is, everyone would want to draw the line in a different place
<Emil^> tortus - amen that is true
<tortus> it would be a disaster for the market
<Emil^> you make sense
<Gazpacho> squidink: I see a lot about servers in the UK... and really, I have no idea what the relevant law is in the UK
<Emil^> butu **** it..........we buuilt this - we get to set the rules
<squidink> with very few exceptions, i view any restriction of the internet to be extrememly offensive. I'll explain why. I'm a libertarian, I'm very pro laissez faire, and, I want to see information free, even if it offends me. The internet is the greatest tool for freedrom of expression, ever invented, and any restriction of it, obviously disturbs me.
<Emil^> i just got a porn spam........i mean just now - is this right?
<Emil^> no!
<Emil^> is this justication to regulate the world?
<arcade> squidink: Agreed.
<arcade> squidink: But I'll have to modify what you say a little bit.
<Emil^> lotec - just be thankful it's not iran or the UN who is drawing those lines
<squidink> obviously, i dont approve of child porn, fraud, spam, torture, etc, but those things are already illegal.
<Emil^> the UN is begging to take control
<Emil^> the UN just doesnt' have enough control over us
<Emil^> that is how i see it
<arcade> squidink: I view any *governmental* restriction of the Internet to be extremely offensive. You should have laws that govern the Internet - but only basic laws such as propertly laws (my server is my server - if you break into it ..)
<squidink> arcade: i agree with that.
<roster> us. govt can only govt US internet
<Gazpacho> squidink: squidink: do you have an example of the FBI seizing a US server and holding it without filing charges?
<Emil^> arcade - now imagine that control in the eyes of china or iran :)
<arcade> Emil^: I don't want to.
<roster> however what u wanna bet you can crack ur browser
Return to politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
freebsd 6.0 pppoe gateway
c++
|
|