Printable View
That's a quote from a skit from the Chappelle show where it depicts how W Bush would act if he and his administration were all African-American.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/c..._2/index.jhtml
Scroll down and look for 'Black Bush' if you feel like watching it.
The internet is a multinational asset. As such it should not belong to a single country.
The internet is a grouping of various smaller nets, it was not put in place solely by the USA. That is like saying Germany put in place all the worlds highways because they had the first Autobhan...
Also as pointed out most of the work that consitutes what we use as the internet was done by international scientists who were trying to share information more quickly to work on projects. CERN being the most obvious case. Along with computer companies adding in their own network topologies.
Yes the problem seems to be that, but if the UN cannot achieve goals without cohersion then it's useless. It's supposed to be the apotheosis of peace, and freedom too, why not...Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Um, no the internet's underlying structure was developed by the USA, as has been demonstrated earlier.Quote:
The internet is a multinational asset. As such it should not belong to a single country.
And guess what? Just because other people use it doesn't mean they can demand ownership of it.
Crazed Rabbit
Then why don't you return all trains...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Because we have designed and built our own trains or traded for designs of trains and eventually gotten around to building or designing our own. I don't really see a reason why the US should give it up (not necessarilly my point of view, just seeing it from the country's interest POV). Why is this in the US's best interest?
I don't get it. The biggest argument for giving the Internet to the EU is that "the US shouldn't have control over something everybody uses."
And the EU should!? What about, say, the South American countries? Or the Asian nations?
No not EU. Read the articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
CBR
Have any of you actually read the article?
Aww. Reading the articles sucks.
It's much better to post based on the slanted statements of others!
OK, so in reading the article Don posted, it looks like the EU wants "everyone" (or, at least not the US) to share the internet.
What's wrong with the current system, again?
The internet is a conglomerate of many different networks, it is not just he USAs. The USA did not put the infrastructure in place in other countries nor did it create the user interface (www and html).
Nor are all the root servers in the USA.
I don't think the EU should have control of it. But I don't think any country should be able to control the internet. Its greatest ability is the free exchange of information and the ability to communicate across borders.
Heh well you should get an idea from the articles again ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
A few quotes:
Quote:
At issue is who would have ultimate authority over the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic.
Quote:
They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy
Quote:
Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable.
Right now the Department of Commerce controls the root servers and could in theory shut down the internet in any country if it wanted. And that is the key issue here. Now that the internet is becoming more important for running a whole nation, and no longer is just something geeks and universities are using, it is vital for all nations that the internet is not controlled by just one nation.Quote:
But with the internet now essential to countries' basic infrastructure - Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection - the question of who has control has become critical.
CBR
Brief History of the Internet
Quote:
The original ARPANET grew into the Internet. Internet was based on the idea that there would be multiple independent networks of rather arbitrary design, beginning with the ARPANET as the pioneering packet switching network, but soon to include packet satellite networks, ground-based packet radio networks and other networks. The Internet as we now know it embodies a key underlying technical idea, namely that of open architecture networking. In this approach, the choice of any individual network technology was not dictated by a particular network architecture but rather could be selected freely by a provider and made to interwork with the other networks through a meta-level "Internetworking Architecture".
The internet is a grouping of private networks. The very protocol that allows this internetworking was made with the idea that there was no global control.Quote:
Thus, Kahn decided to develop a new version of the protocol which could meet the needs of an open-architecture network environment. This protocol would eventually be called the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). While NCP tended to act like a device driver, the new protocol would be more like a communications protocol.
Four ground rules were critical to Kahn's early thinking:
Each distinct network would have to stand on its own and no internal changes could be required to any such network to connect it to the Internet.
Communications would be on a best effort basis. If a packet didn't make it to the final destination, it would shortly be retransmitted from the source.
Black boxes would be used to connect the networks; these would later be called gateways and routers. There would be no information retained by the gateways about the individual flows of packets passing through them, thereby keeping them simple and avoiding complicated adaptation and recovery from various failure modes.
There would be no global control at the operations level.
Other key issues that needed to be addressed were:
Algorithms to prevent lost packets from permanently disabling communications and enabling them to be successfully retransmitted from the source.
Providing for host to host "pipelining" so that multiple packets could be enroute from source to destination at the discretion of the participating hosts, if the intermediate networks allowed it.
Gateway functions to allow it to forward packets appropriately. This included interpreting IP headers for routing, handling interfaces, breaking packets into smaller pieces if necessary, etc.
The need for end-end checksums, reassembly of packets from fragments and detection of duplicates, if any.
The need for global addressing
Techniques for host to host flow control.
Interfacing with the various operating systems
There were also other concerns, such as implementation efficiency, internetwork performance, but these were secondary considerations at first.
Quote:
Widespread development of LANS, PCs and workstations in the 1980s allowed the nascent Internet to flourish. Ethernet technology, developed by Bob Metcalfe at Xerox PARC in 1973, is now probably the dominant network technology in the Internet and PCs and workstations the dominant computers. This change from having a few networks with a modest number of time-shared hosts (the original ARPANET model) to having many networks has resulted in a number of new concepts and changes to the underlying technology. First, it resulted in the definition of three network classes (A, B, and C) to accommodate the range of networks. Class A represented large national scale networks (small number of networks with large numbers of hosts); Class B represented regional scale networks; and Class C represented local area networks (large number of networks with relatively few hosts).
Quote:
The shift to having a large number of independently managed networks (e.g., LANs) meant that having a single table of hosts was no longer feasible, and the Domain Name System (DNS) was invented by Paul Mockapetris of USC/ISI. The DNS permitted a scalable distributed mechanism for resolving hierarchical host names (e.g. www.acm.org) into an Internet address.
Quote:
One of the more interesting challenges was the transition of the ARPANET host protocol from NCP to TCP/IP as of January 1, 1983. This was a "flag-day" style transition, requiring all hosts to convert simultaneously or be left having to communicate via rather ad-hoc mechanisms. This transition was carefully planned within the community over several years before it actually took place and went surprisingly smoothly (but resulted in a distribution of buttons saying "I survived the TCP/IP transition").
TCP/IP was adopted as a defense standard three years earlier in 1980. This enabled defense to begin sharing in the DARPA Internet technology base and led directly to the eventual partitioning of the military and non- military communities. By 1983, ARPANET was being used by a significant number of defense R&D and operational organizations. The transition of ARPANET from NCP to TCP/IP permitted it to be split into a MILNET supporting operational requirements and an ARPANET supporting research needs.
Quote:
Thus, by 1985, Internet was already well established as a technology supporting a broad community of researchers and developers, and was beginning to be used by other communities for daily computer communications.
Quote:
With the exception of BITNET and USENET, these early networks (including ARPANET) were purpose-built - i.e., they were intended for, and largely restricted to, closed communities of scholars; there was hence little pressure for the individual networks to be compatible and, indeed, they largely were not. In addition, alternate technologies were being pursued in the commercial sector, including XNS from Xerox, DECNet, and IBM's SNA. 8 It remained for the British JANET (1984) and U.S. NSFNET (1985) programs to explicitly announce their intent to serve the entire higher education community, regardless of discipline. Indeed, a condition for a U.S. university to receive NSF funding for an Internet connection was that "... the connection must be made available to ALL qualified users on campus."
Quote:
A key to the rapid growth of the Internet has been the free and open access to the basic documents, especially the specifications of the protocols.
The beginnings of the ARPANET and the Internet in the university research community promoted the academic tradition of open publication of ideas and results. However, the normal cycle of traditional academic publication was too formal and too slow for the dynamic exchange of ideas essential to creating networks.
Quote:
On October 24, 1995, the FNC unanimously passed a resolution defining the term Internet. This definition was developed in consultation with members of the internet and intellectual property rights communities. RESOLUTION: The Federal Networking Council (FNC) agrees that the following language reflects our definition of the term "Internet". "Internet" refers to the global information system that -- (i) is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and (iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered on the communications and related infrastructure described herein.
But CBR - those things could happen no matter who is running the internet.
What if the UN decides to cut off internet access to all nations who recognize Israel's soveirgnty?
Or other nasty, similar circumstances.:book:
CBR would it be possible or too cost prohibitive for countries to set up mini-internets specifically for tax-collection and such?
I don't have a strong opinion either way, just wondering and every now and then playing devil's advocate.
Well if you read the second article that is precisely what some fear: that internet and politics get mixed together. From what I can read it is not the idea and would definitely be bad if it happens. One good thing about putting it under UN is that then nothing will ever happen as we all know UN cant decide anything anyway ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
CBR
To me, admittedly a biased source, I would say the UN would try to politicize it before the US would.
If I was not a US citizen, I might see things differently though.
:bow:
I have really no idea how costly it would be. The future will only make internet more integrated in our lives so I think having one standard is the best for making it as smooth and cheap for all of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
CBR
Guys the internet is a lot of mini networks. The issue is that these independent networks have a global control point in direct violation of the orginal design and intent of the internet.
Ah that's what I figured, thought I might as well ask though. Well it will be interesting to see how this turns out. Although I think the only way a country could truly ensure its IT infrastructure would be to have its own mini-web for government purposes. Though I bet it would be cost-prohibitive for small/poor countries.
That's not really true in the sense that you think it is. Yes, my home network is my own and is totally independent of the Internet at large. It uses a private IP subnet and has private name resolution (NETBIOS in my case). However, to access the Internet at large I have to go thru my router that uses a public IP address from Verizon, who, in turn, gets its block of addresses that are assigned to it by the ICANN. Those blocks of addresses must be properly assigned and managed for the Internet to function.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
This is also being confused with DNS, which is best thought of as a phonebook. The DNS name totalwar.org translates to the "phone number" of 216.234.246.245 . We can remember totalwar.org and other FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Names) easier than you can long IP addresses, also if the number changes- all that needs to be done is to change the IP on the DNS servers, instead of getting the new address out to everyone who has ever or will ever use the site.
Now, DNS is a hierarchical system. For example, a 'local' DNS server would differentiate between www or forums.totalwar.org . Also, the owner of totalwar.org could do things like create www .rtw.totalwar.org, ect. But, up from that would be the '.org' servers, which would contain the registrations for anything that's .org- totalwar.org, cato.org- whatever. What it sound like the EU wants to get their grubby little mitts on are the "root" DNS servers. These keep track of the addresses for the servers responsible for the various top-level domains like .com, .org, .net, .edu, .info, .biz, and so on ad naseum.
Personally, if they think they should have control of those, they can go jump in a lake.
ICANN has done an excellent job of it and there's no need to go screw it up now just because someone is on a power-trip. Sorry, I don't trust them.
The individual private networks are independent and open. How they interconnect needs to be managed or it wont function.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Your missing the point, kiwitt. Europe should have some access, but not control. We built it, you can't take it and tell us how to use it. Europe invented the car, we bought cars from europe, and then built cars of our own. We didn't demand that you give us the invention and we certainly didn't try to enforce road laws on you.Quote:
Europe invented the car. Will you Americans stop driving our invention.
America invented the Aeroplane. Will you Europeans stop flying our invention.
Eurpeans invented wine. (maybe). Will you Americans stop drinking it. BTW: Same goes for Beer.
That has to be the most inane post i've seen in awhile...The US is an independent nation; not part of europe.:dizzy2: I suggest that you read up on some of the events of 1776 and 1812~DQuote:
Let`s not forget who it was that 'invented' the U.S in the first place.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...c/rolleyes.gif
Don,
I do not know much about the internet claims. But I do know that the US does not use interlectual property rights in a fair way. They support them whenever it is good for the US and they hurt them whenever it is not. So please do not complain!
I agree that the EU is more agressive towards the US to protect her rights (o.k. what she thinks is hers~;) ) Do not know how this started.
Aw, come on. The UN can't get common politics even if it wanted to, so how could the UN possibly politicize the internet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
And rather amusing it was too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Managed yes, controlled by government no. Either the EU or US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
As for the root DNS servers they are located in the locations with the highest traffic. USA, Europe, Japan etc
DNS Root Servers.
Edit.
There are 13 root dns servers, each of which can have multiple nodes for instance F root server:
F root
Yeah, maybe we should put it under the management of an internationally organized, non-profit corporation..... oh wait, we already have that. So, we should change it, why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Wrong, there was no Americans before America was created. :deal:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Did I say so? I`m just saying we want to take part in you parties, without 'us 'there would never been any 'you'. :deal:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
why not apply the samething to children? With out your parents, you wouldn't exist. therefore, any money you make or property you buy should belong to them. But make sure that you have plenty of children; you'll need money and property too. To make sure that you have a steady cash flow, have atleast have one extra child more then your parents. It's like a pyramid scheme.Quote:
Did I say so? I`m just saying we want to take part in you parties, without 'us 'there would never been any 'you'. :deal:
things change after 200 years. Europe claiming to have "invented" The U.S is as absurd as italy demanding parts of europe and the middle east back because they owned those areas ~2000 years ago.
I repeat: The U.S is an independent nation. NOT part of Europe.
The romans might have owned the middle east and great parts of Europe, but they did not make up a majority of the population there. Otherwise the continental plates moves in the right direction, you are right, the U.S is not a part of Europe. :deal:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
By "Not part of Europe", i meant not part of the EU.
"The romans might have owned the middle east and great parts of Europe, but they did not make up a majority of the population there."
Yes, but the population did mix with the romans AFAIK. Infact, without them, Europe might be less advanced. Thus, any advanced technology developed by Europe should be given to italy. With out 'them', there would be no 'you' as there is today.:deal:
This argument isn't going anywhere. let's let this thread take a better course