Bush administration annexes control of the Internet

[feakbeak]

Link to article (http://www.theregister.com/2005/07/01/bush_net_policy/)

As an American, all I can say is "Damn, we're arrogant."

Here's an interesting section of the article:

But what is most disturbing about Gallagher's presentation, is how it endlessly refers to the president. The first slide has a picture of George Bush. The second begins "Thanks to the president's policies, America's economy is strong". The next slide is "The president's broadband vision". The next slide leads with a quote from Bush and two pictures of him. And on and on it goes. There is barely a single slide that doesn't quote from the president.WTF? I doubt Bush can even spell the word Internet and I'm certain that he has no clue what domain name resolution is about.

Edit: At some point if the rest of the world rises up to slay us after we continue to pull more of these arrogant and selfish maneuvers please keep in mind that of the half of us who even bother to vote, nearly half of those voters didn't vote for this moron, myself included.

[Abstract]

Need I say more? :rolleyes:

[feakbeak]

Great, I live in the second-dumbest blue state. We're not even averaging 100!

Mississippi has an average of 85. According to a chart I found that is only one point away from being classified as "Borderline Intellectual Functioning". How's that for a state motto?

Mississippi: Borderline Intellectual Functioning

[Studawg7]

ok, I ll let the "dust" settle on this article. I just read it on cnet and now on here. I am sure others will be reading it soon. I say lets not talk about bush this and bush that or the US is this or the US is that. Open the discussion to whats important:

What is the difference between US control of root files and some other organization? Would it really make an improvement for anyone, including the US?

I ll leave my personal comments to myself and I hope everyone else does too.

[feakbeak]

While it was not my intent to have this thread get too politicized I don't feel throwing in my personal opinions towards the current US administration are completely irrelevant to this topic. Under the Bush administration the US has acted more unilaterally in foreign/global affairs. I suppose if the political aspect gets too out of hand this thread could be moved to the political forum.

This article contains both technical and political ramifications. The root DNS servers are the foundation of the DNS server system that allow internet names such as macrumors.com to be translated into an IP address so that the request can be routed to the correct the server. While many countries have root domains specific to their country such as co.uk for Britain most/all of the large country-independent domains like .com, .net and .org are hosted by these root DNS servers. By maintaining control over these servers the US holds a large amount of power over the internet. These servers could be manipulated to block certain domain names from being resolved properly or if shutdown would really screw up the DNS server system. Since the Internet is a global system used by all countries, it should probably be regulated by an independent organization. I would rather see it regulated by a department of the UN. ICANN has been rather weak in its practical power to police the Internet.

I'm not expert on how the DNS server system works globally or any of the details on how DNS propagation occurs or what other redundancies are in place that might allow for proper DNS resolution without these root servers. If there are any experts out there please correct me and/or fill in the blanks.

[EJBasile]

Need I say more? :rolleyes:

CT the richest state, with the highest IQs. :)

(too bad we have so many corrupt government workers though)

[fox2005]

Need I say more? :rolleyes:

Thats awesome... confirms my allegations... can you give me the source of that info? a link mabe?

[Lyle]

Thats awesome... confirms my allegations... can you give me the source of that info? a link mabe?Here's a link to the Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp) article that describes this hoax in more detail.

[anonymous161]

Doesn't the US already control the root DNS servers? So they would simply be keeping them instead of turning them over to someone else. I don't really see where this is a big issue, we haven't had DNS censorship so far and I don't know why that would change, particularly since ICANN will be in charge of them.

[feakbeak]

Doesn't the US already control the root DNS servers? So they would simply be keeping them instead of turning them over to someone else. I don't really see where this is a big issue, we haven't had DNS censorship so far and I don't know why that would change, particularly since ICANN will be in charge of them.You have a point that this isn't like a hostile take over of those servers. However, the US was under agreement to relinquish control in 2006 and now they have just decided it would be best to continue to administer those servers themselves. They didn't ink a new agreement with ICANN. This power was not given to them by ICANN... they just decided that's what is best for the world. While I don't think this is earth-shattering news it is interesting and, IMO, shows some arrogance.

[anonymous161]

Okay, I see where you're coming from. Yeah, it does smell a little of "US knows best"

[MongoTheGeek]

You have a point that this isn't like a hostile take over of those servers. However, the US was under agreement to relinquish control in 2006 and now they have just decided it would be best to continue to administer those servers themselves. They didn't ink a new agreement with ICANN. This power was not given to them by ICANN... they just decided that's what is best for the world. While I don't think this is earth-shattering news it is interesting and, IMO, shows some arrogance.

Either that or a well founded distrust of ICANN.

No government should control the root DNS servers. Honestly I would like to see no one control all of them. They should be established in a topographically sensible manner and given over groups able to handle them. allow for rolling reallocations every 10 years or so,

Custodians should be groups like AT&T, AOL, BT, Deutche Telekom, MIT. Either ISPs, Phone Companies or major universities. Microsoft might even make a good choice. The idea is to pick people who have a vested interest in stability and to devolve power from a central location.

[feakbeak]

Either that or a well founded distrust of ICANN.

No government should control the root DNS servers. Honestly I would like to see no one control all of them. They should be established in a topographically sensible manner and given over groups able to handle them. allow for rolling reallocations every 10 years or so,

Custodians should be groups like AT&T, AOL, BT, Deutche Telekom, MIT. Either ISPs, Phone Companies or major universities. Microsoft might even make a good choice. The idea is to pick people who have a vested interest in stability and to devolve power from a central location.I completely agree with you. Having the major DNS servers distributed and maintained by several different organizations working together would be the best solution. I find that highly unlikely to occur.

Although it may not be best for ICANN to run them alone, I find it interesting that they are ignoring the present agreement and instead are doing what they believe is best (retaining the control of these servers themselves) rather than seeking a solution that better suits of the industry and the global community, such as the solution you propose.

[MacNut]

CT the richest state, with the highest IQs. :)

(too bad we have so many corrupt government workers though)Ha, one of them is in jail tho.
:)

[iKwick7]

CT the richest state, with the highest IQs. :)

(too bad we have so many corrupt government workers though)

Just like NJ. :)

I think we (NJ) are only that high because so many people here are foreigners.

:)

[MacNut]

Link to article (http://www.theregister.com/2005/07/01/bush_net_policy/)

As an American, all I can say is "Damn, we're arrogant."

Here's an interesting section of the article:

WTF? I doubt Bush can even spell the word Internet and I'm certain that he has no clue what domain name resolution is about.

Edit: At some point if the rest of the world rises up to slay us after we continue to pull more of these arrogant and selfish maneuvers please keep in mind that of the half of us who even bother to vote, nearly half of those voters didn't vote for this moron, myself included.Wait didnt' AL Gore claim to invent the internet.
:p

[feakbeak]

Wait didnt' AL Gore claim to invent the internet.
:pWho hasn't created the Internet?

[mactastic]

Wait didnt' AL Gore claim to invent the internet.
:p

That is as true as the chart. Some people never learn though.

[aloofman]

Doesn't the US already control the root DNS servers? So they would simply be keeping them instead of turning them over to someone else. I don't really see where this is a big issue, we haven't had DNS censorship so far and I don't know why that would change, particularly since ICANN will be in charge of them.

The propaganda presentation is more revealing than the actual policy change (or lack of one, rather). Any attempt to more closely regulate the root servers would cause more headaches than it's worth to the government.

[Royal Pineapple]

Wait didnt' AL Gore claim to invent the internet.
:p

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

[GodBless]

I am glad to see the Internet in this government's hands. At least we Republicans will take care of it as we do with all other technology (and all other policies for that matter). ;)

Al Gore lied. He never made the Internet and he will never have rights to it. Good thing it won't be in his corrupt hands.

[jelloshotsrule]

Al Gore lied. He never made the Internet and he will never have rights to it. Good thing it won't be in his corrupt hands.

how is he corrupt?

[GodBless]

how is he corrupt?
I hope you mean how is he NOT corrupt. It starts with lying and it ends in policies. Anybody who goes for killing unborn children should belong on death row the last place they belong is in office. Mass murder in the US is a lot worse than the minor death that occurs in Iraq. Remember the price of freedom isn't free. Lives will be lost for a good cause. Mark my words.

[quagmire]

I am glad to see the Internet in this government's hands. At least we Republicans will take care of it as we do with all other technology (and all other policies for that matter). ;)

Al Gore lied. He never made the Internet and he will never have rights to it. Good thing it won't be in his corrupt hands.

I can get a full list of bad things Republicans did in the past. For example

1) Watergate

2) Great Depression

3) The Gilded Age.

4) Letting their beliefs take control of the actions they took in the Clinton years. Revenge for Watergate.

Those are the major things that happened when Republicans were in power. But, I would not call all of them corrupt since I am a Democrat and not a Republican. I will not vote for every Democrat that runs. That would be stupid and could lead us to an unbalance of power unlike what we seen so far because we would only vote for the person who is representing the party. Also, just because Gore is a Democrat and you rule Democrats=corrupt,doesn't mean he is corrupt. Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr, Thomas Jefferson, Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, and Taft being republicans doesn't make them corrupt either. Now I am not saying Democrats can't be corrupt. They can be corrupt and so can republicans.

Anybody who goes for killing unborn children should belong on death row the last place they belong is in office. Mass murder in the US is a lot worse than the minor death that occurs in Iraq. Remember the price of freedom isn't free. Lives will be lost for a good cause. Mark my words.

So our troops are minor deaths? They're disposable? If you take a look of what this country stands for, you can see why Gore supports abortion. This country was based on freedom. Now Freedom does have its limits, but abortion isn't an example. Abortion doesn't infringe on another rights. It is the parents decision to get an abortion or not. The government shouldn't get in their way.

[mactastic]

I hope you mean how is he NOT corrupt. It starts with lying and it ends in policies. Anybody who goes for killing unborn children should belong on death row the last place they belong is in office. Mass murder in the US is a lot worse than the minor death that occurs in Iraq. Remember the price of freedom isn't free. Lives will be lost for a good cause. Mark my words.

So if Bush has killed pregnant women in Iraq, would you support his execution as well?

[GodBless]

I can get a full list of bad things Republicans did in the past. For example

1) Watergate

2) Great Depression

3) The Gilded Age.

4) Letting their beliefs take control of the actions they took in the Clinton years. Revenge for Watergate.

Those are the major things that happened when Republicans were in power. But, I would not call all of them corrupt since I am a Democrat and not a Republican. I will not vote for every Democrat that runs. That would be stupid and could lead us to an unbalance of power unlike what we seen so far because we would only vote for the person who is representing the party. Also, just because Gore is a Democrat and you rule Democrats=corrupt,doesn't mean he is corrupt. Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr, Thomas Jefferson, Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, and Taft being republicans doesn't make them corrupt either. Now I am not saying Democrats can't be corrupt. They can be corrupt and so can republicans.No Republican is perfect and I can't say I've ever known of a Republican that supports all the policies I've wanted him/her to. For the most part though Republicans represent me.

I am pro-life. (Yes one third of the US women are murderers.)
I am moral. (A building without a foundation will fall. No flip flopping please.)
I think before I jump. (I don't think I know it all even though I have a high IQ.)
I give people what they need and not what they want. (You know when you've met a true leader when he/she doesn't follow others corruptness.)
And most of all I follow God who IS perfect. (Nobody can fail if they put God at the top.)

[mactastic]

...you can see why Gore supports abortion.
Point of fact - Al Gore does not support abortion. He does support a woman's right to choose, but that doesn't mean he likes or encourages abortion. Big difference.

I'm sure if you asked many of the war supporters they won't tell you that they are 'pro-war' (meaning they actually like and enjoy it) but rather they support the right of the Armed Forces to defend our country.

[quagmire]

Point of fact - Al Gore does not support abortion. He does support a woman's right to choose, but that doesn't mean he likes or encourages abortion. Big difference.

I'm sure if you asked many of the war supporters they won't tell you that they are 'pro-war' (meaning they actually like and enjoy it) but rather they support the right of the Armed Forces to defend our country.

Thanks for the correction. I agree with you about the troops. GodBless maybe saying they die for a good reason. That sounds to me that he thinks the troops are disposable. Now I could be wrong. That is just my understanding of his comment.

And most of all I follow God who IS perfect. (Nobody can fail if they put God at the top.)

I respect you for following your religious beliefs. But, don't try to force them on others. This country is already too religious. So you are saying that people have to drop their beliefs and believe what God believes so they can succeed? I really do emphasize on the key word of freedom. That includes freedom of religion without any other outside force trying to sway their beliefs.

[GodBless]

Point of fact - Al Gore does not support abortion. He does support a woman's right to choose, but that doesn't mean he likes or encourages abortion. Big difference.Oh, then what do you think would happen if we all had the right to kill people with guns? Do you support that or is it just OK to kill innocent life that won't shoot back? This is insane! It makes no difference if the child is born or not you are still killing a human that God created.

[Lyle]

Well, you'd think that after all this time hanging out at MacRumors, I would have seen this coming. Is it just me, or has this thread suddenly veered off course? ;)

[quagmire]

Oh, then what do you think would happen if we all had the right to kill people with guns? Do you support that or is it just OK to kill innocent life that won't shoot back? This is insane! It makes no difference if the child is born or not you are still killing a human that God created.

This is war. Innocent civilians die. While Civilian casualties have dropped due to better tech since WWII, it will still happen. If you want to talk about killing innocent civilians, talk to the insurgents that keep on blowing them up. I maybe wrong; I think the insurgents killed more innocent lives in Iraq then our troops has. As I said though, I could be wrong.

[Dave the Great]

Boy, this is a weird thread. It started off about domain names and went quickly to abortion and killing women in Iraq???

On topic -
I don't know if I see this exactly as a bad thing. As far as I know, we've had control and we are just continuing on. It's not like we annexed it.

And no one has pointed out a reason why it is a bad thing.

The only thing that I saw mentioned, that was supposedly negative, was the cnet article said it was a snub to the UN. But, then again the UN of late has not big a picture of a non-corrupt agency - oil/food, anan's son business, etc.

And to the people who only think the US is selfish, etc., I thought I just read about France acting unilaterally and in full bully mode, because they wanted the fushion power plant in France.

Lastly, to the post about Microsoft running it, oh man, I would love to see the posts and threads on this site, if that was to happen!!!

[mactastic]

Oh, then what do you think would happen if we all had the right to kill people with guns? Do you support that or is it just OK to kill innocent life that won't shoot back? This is insane! It makes no difference if the child is born or not you are still killing a human that God created.

But Bush kills humans that God created too. Innocent ones at that. Or is it only a problem for you if a human that God created is killed before it leaves the womb?

[atari1356]

Well, you'd think that after all this time hanging out at MacRumors, I would have seen this coming. Is it just me, or has this thread suddenly veered off course? ;)

Yeah, so much for it not turning political...

[mactastic]

Is it just me, or has this thread suddenly veered off course? ;)

What were we talking about again? :p

[emw]

Oh, then what do you think would happen if we all had the right to kill people with guns?Oh I love it - let's throw out hypothetical situations that don't actually exist in order to defend your position. :rolleyes:

If you want to provide some reasonable argument against abortion, I'm sure some people may actually listen. When you say things like this, to me at least, it destroys any credibility you may have had.

[mactastic]

Oh come on, extremist rhetorical bomb-throwing is so much more fun than building a rational argument...

[Ugg]

I hope you mean how is he NOT corrupt. It starts with lying and it ends in policies. Anybody who goes for killing unborn children should belong on death row the last place they belong is in office. Mass murder in the US is a lot worse than the minor death that occurs in Iraq. Remember the price of freedom isn't free. Lives will be lost for a good cause. Mark my words.

Are you saying that people who support abortion are going to be killed? If so, maybe you better reread the rules for posting on this forum.

[Ugg]

No Republican is perfect and I can't say I've ever known of a Republican that supports all the policies I've wanted him/her to. For the most part though Republicans represent me.

I am pro-life. (Yes one third of the US women are murderers.)
I am moral. (A building without a foundation will fall. No flip flopping please.)
I think before I jump. (I don't think I know it all even though I have a high IQ.)
I give people what they need and not what they want. (You know when you've met a true leader when he/she doesn't follow others corruptness.)
And most of all I follow God who IS perfect. (Nobody can fail if they put God at the top.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but first off you say that no republican is perfect and then you say that if one puts god at the top they can't fail. Hmmm, since republicans tend to be christians isn't that incredibly oxymoronic of you to make such a statement? So bushco can't fail in what he attempts? Ohhhh, ok, I've got it now, it's satan who is behind all his failings, it was satan who led him into invading a country based on his beliefs that there were oodles and oodles of mass weapons to be found there.

You gotta love those christians, they always have an easy out, just blame it on satan (or canada, or france or old europe or liberals or whatever, but they, the christians are never, ever, ever to be blamed.) How pathetic

[feakbeak]

You gotta love those christians, they always have an easy out, just blame it on satan (or canada, or france or old europe or liberals or whatever, but they, the christians are never, ever, ever to be blamed.) How patheticDon't stereotype the Christians. GodBless is not the average Christian. It's the vocal minority that take the bible literally and/or misinterpret it and take it to the extreme. BTW, this is coming from someone who really hates organized religion - but I think your comment was unfair.

What were we talking about again? :pBush administration annexes control of the Internet in order to save unborn children. ;)

You gotta love the ads we're generating though - what a range of topics. :eek:

[skunk]

No Republican is perfect and I can't say I've ever known of a Republican that supports all the policies I've wanted him/her to. For the most part though Republicans represent me.I'm sure they'll be happy to know that.

I am pro-life. (Yes one third of the US women are murderers.)Some life. And you get to choose whose that is.
I am moral. (A building without a foundation will fall. No flip flopping please.)See my sig.
I think before I jump. (I don't think I know it all even though I have a high IQ.)Well, there's a relief!
I give people what they need and not what they want.And you get to choose what that is. Because you know best.
And most of all I follow God who IS perfect. (Nobody can fail if they put God at the top.)"I was only following orders...."
Now, where have I heard that before?

[emw]

I am pro-life. (Yes one third of the US women are murderers.))Wow, how did I miss this one? So you are saying that 1/3 of all US women are murderers? Assuming you are referring to abortion, are you saying that 1/3 of US women have had abortions? I'd love to see where you got those statistics.

If you are saying that the support of abortion makes you a murderer, then I would contest that you, too, are a murderer for supporting a war in which innocent people are killed.

Lives will be lost for a good cause.

I hope you're planning to go to confession soon.

[skunk]

I hope you're planning to go to confession soon.I hope he's going on a Righteousness Management Course.

[LethalWolfe]

You gotta love those christians, they always have an easy out, just blame it on satan (or canada, or france or old europe or liberals or whatever, but they, the christians are never, ever, ever to be blamed.) How pathetic

Stereotype much...

All bible-thumping @sshats may be Christian, but that doesn't mean all Christians are bible-thumping @sshats.


Lethal

[GodBless]

In reply to all the responses:

Yes I am extremely straight forward with the facts. And if the truth hurts you better check yourself for the error (for your own good) because truth never lies. Don't blame me for telling you this. I don't put fog in the air I clear it and describe the scene. That's what my posts in this thread were about. Reread them with an open mind and please don't try to say I am crazy for being reasonable.

[quagmire]

In reply to all the responses:

Yes I am extremely straight forward with the facts. And if the truth hurts you better check yourself for the error (for your own good) because truth never lies. Don't blame me for telling you this. I don't put fog in the air I clear it and describe the scene. That's what my posts in this thread were about. Reread them with an open mind and please don't try to say I am crazy for being reasonable.

As I said Bless, you have the right to follow your beliefs since it is the freedom granted to you by this country. But, you are violating others rights by trying to force your beliefs as fact. There are a lot of homeless people who believe in god and trust him. So why are they homeless? You are not crazy, and you are also not reasonable since you are telling us your beliefs as fact. I am sorry we are different and believe in different things. This country represents this freedom to have our own opinions, and our beliefs. Be it that we agree with you or we disagree with your beliefs and have our own. I don't think the abortion rate is 1/3. That sounds way to big to me. Plus is an egg once fertilized, but didn't reach the fetus stage considered murder? I don't think so since the egg hasn't developed a heart, brain, or any other major organs. It is just another cell in your body waiting to grow into a fetus. I also think that even once to the fetus stage, the parents have the right still to have an abortion. But, that is my very honest opinion.

[GodBless]

As I said Bless, you have the right to follow your beliefs since it is the freedom granted to you by this country. But, you are violating others rights by trying to force your beliefs as fact. There are a lot of homeless people who believe in god and trust him. So why are they homeless? You are not crazy, and you are also not reasonable since you are telling us your beliefs as fact. I am sorry we are different and believe in different things. This country represents this freedom to have our own opinions, and our beliefs. Be it that we agree with you or we disagree with your beliefs and have our own. I don't think the abortion rate is 1/3. That sounds way to big to me. Plus is an egg once fertilized, but didn't reach the fetus stage considered murder? I don't think so since the egg hasn't developed a heart, brain, or any other major organs. It is just another cell in your body waiting to grow into a fetus. I also think that even once to the fetus stage, the parents have the right still to have an abortion. But, that is my very honest opinion.We all have our opinions when only one way is right. And yes unfortunately the abortion rate is 1 in 3 IN THE USA from the last I heard from a reliable source.

[superbovine]

To think all these problems started because the DoD wanted to send self routing data packets of radio messages over the telecom system if a nuclear attack destroyed part of it.

http://www.icann.org/general/amend6-jpamou-17sep03.htm


B. This Agreement will become effective upon signature of ICANN and the Department. This Agreement will terminate on September 30, 2006. This Agreement may not be amended except upon the mutual written agreement of the Parties. Either Party may terminate this Agreement by providing one hundred twenty (120) days written notice to the other Party. If this Agreement is terminated, each Party shall be solely responsible for the payment of any expenses it has incurred. This Agreement is subject to the availability of funds.

[Rower_CPU]

A general reminder/heads up for folks who may not be familiar with the rules of this sub-forum:

Political Forum Guidelines

There is also an informal/unwritten rule that posters back up assertions with links or references to sources, especially when asked to do so by other posters. This helps to keep discussion on a more objective, civil level and prevent threads from going down in flames.

Thanks :)

[Ugg]

We all have our opinions when only one way is right. And yes unfortunately the abortion rate is 1 in 3 IN THE USA from the last I heard from a reliable source.


n fact, the miscarriage rate for all pregnancies was 15%,

linky (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/64/72351.htm)

So, if 1 in 3 pregnancies are terminated and 15% are natural miscarriages, then only 52% of fertilized eggs result in live births? I don't think so.

According to this site (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html) the 2001 (latest year listed) rate for abortions was 16%. Abortions peaked in 1980 at 25%. So, obviously either you are grossly mistaken or, you are saying that any naturally occurring miscarriage should also be listed as an abortion.

Perhaps instead of hearing from a "reliable" source, you should do a little googling to find the real truth instead of merely gossip spread by hate mongers.

Why should anyone continue to believe anything you have to say when it all seems to be based upon hearsay and fictional writings? Repeating something ad infinitum never, ever makes it true.

[Ugg]

Stereotype much...

All bible-thumping @sshats may be Christian, but that doesn't mean all Christians are bible-thumping @sshats.


Lethal

Sorry, should have added, "heavy sarcasm intended". I know some Christians who don't stereotype but not many. Perhaps it's just the company I keep...

[Xtremehkr]

Officially thread-jacked. Why can't conservatives stay on topic?

[LethalWolfe]

Officially thread-jacked. Why can't conservatives stay on topic?

Stereotype much... :D


Lethal

[LethalWolfe]

Sorry, should have added, "heavy sarcasm intended". I know some Christians who don't stereotype but not many. Perhaps it's just the company I keep...

My bad. My sarcasm meter doesn't work as well when I'm at work.


Lethal

[Thomas Veil]

Folks, don't get caught up in GodBless's belief system. There are a lot of people who rank abortion as one of the major factors in making voting decisions, and there are a lot of people who claim Gore lies because they drink from the Republican Kool-Aid dispenser. I've found it's useless arguing with them.

With regard to Bush's plan to play keepsies with the internet...feh! Yeah, it's in character for him (arrogant, that is), but some day another president will feel differently.

And with regards to the dumbest states voting for Bush...well, back after the election, when I found out that original chart was a hoax, I tried matching up the red states and blue states to this chart (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/smartstates/smartstates). I didn't save the resulting revised chart, but I remember that while the result wasn't quite as pronounced as in the phony chart, it still indicated a tendency for the dumber states to vote for Bush.

[Xtremehkr]

Well, how do you small government people feel about the internet being owned by the government?

[Ugg]

Well, how do you small government people feel about the internet being owned by the government?

It's bad news. No government should be allowed to control access to such important information.

[Xtremehkr]

It's bad news. No government should be allowed to control access to such important information.

I completely agree, and I have to wonder why. I think the reasons are much deeper than terrorism alone. The last thing I want to do is to give up my liberties to a group who have made such a mess of the terror problem And who have, as yet, failed to capture the person behind 9/11. Failed.

[superbovine]

A general reminder/heads up for folks who may not be familiar with the rules of this sub-forum:

Political Forum Guidelines

There is also an informal/unwritten rule that posters back up assertions with links or references to sources, especially when asked to do so by other posters. This helps to keep discussion on a more objective, civil level and prevent threads from going down in flames.

Thanks :)

if you were talking to me

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=171588


July: The triple network Internet is demonstrated for the first time. Cerf, Kahn and others link up 3 networks using TCP: packet radio, ARPANET and SATNET. Messages travel 94,000 miles from San Francisco to London to California "without dropping a single bit".

[solvs]

if you were talking to me
Probably more GodBless, and those who responded to him (I'm assuming). Which I'm now one of apparently. Oops. I'm trying not to even get into it, but I will say that if you really think Bush and Co. are as moral as they say they are... you might want to do a little more research. I can wear a Bible on my sleeve too, but when I go around doing the exact opposite, you'd think more people would notice. I seem to recall Jesus speaking out against the corrupt politicians, and though Gore and Kerry aren't exactly my favorite people, at least I can see them for what they really are. And Bush for what he is. I base that on actually facts BTW. No on rhetoric and belief presented as fact.

Anyway, on-topic, this probably isn't as bad as it seems. But it does seem to go along with the way things seem to be headed. Lots of smallish things can suddenly turn into a much larger thing very easily. They can say they're out to get terrorists and child pornographers, but at what cost? I guess unlike the above, I do not think the ends justify the means. And this is just another in a long line of little things as we slide down that slippery slope.

Are you afraid yet? You will be. You should be.

[mactastic]

1/3 of all Christians are total a$$hats. I heard it from a reliable source, so that's the last word on that.
;)

[skunk]

1/3 of all Christians are total a$$hats. I heard it from a reliable source, so that's the last word on that.
;)What exactly is an "a$$hat"? Not a familiar term over here... :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

What exactly is an "a$$hat"? Not a familiar term over here... :rolleyes:
arsebowler

[skunk]

arsebowlerAh.
:confused: :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

perhaps it's all an effort to keep me from making fun of bush when he wears his giant dress:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/04/national/04bush.650.jpg