Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

DoC to Extend ICANN's Control of IANA 535

Posted by michael from the acronym-heaven dept.
Luminous Coward writes "I first saw this on The Register. Kevin Murphy of Computerwire reports: The US Department of Commerce last week quietly published a document detailing its decision to "sole-source" the contract for the so-called IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) function to ICANN, as opposed to opening the contract for competitive bidding. ICANNWatch explains why this is a bad idea. They also report that the ccTLDs and the Internet Multicasting Service have expressed interest in running IANA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DoC to Extend ICANN's Control of IANA More

DoC to Extend ICANN's Control of IANA

Comments Filter:
  • Look, you can see by my sig that I'm as into a good political mud slinging contest as anyone, but less face the facts here. This is not a big deal. Things could be better, but it would be a .1% improvement, not a huge earth-shaking event.

    Let's concentrate on the things that really matter folks.

  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cK-Gunslinger ( 443452 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @04:24PM (#5282492) Journal
    IANAL, but if ICANN takes control of IANA, then the ccTLDs just SOL and the IMS are FUBAR'd, IMHO.
    • Where's IIRCAFAIKIANAL when you need him?

    • Re: cliches (Score:2, Funny)

      by roxy-skya ( 555923 )
      With clients in professional sports and the executive suite, Frank Lingua, President and CEO of Dissembling Associates, is the nation's leading purveyor of buzzwords, catchphrases and clichés for clients too busy to speak in plain English. Here he is interviewed in his New York City office...

      Q. Is it a full-time job being a cliché expert?

      A. Bottom line is I have a full plate 24/7.

      Q. How do you know if you're successful in your work?

      A. At the end of the day, it's all about robust, world-class solutions.

      Q. Where do most clichés come from?
      A. Stakeholders push the envelope until it's outside the box.

      Q. Is it hard to keep up with the seemingly endless supply of clichés that spew from business?
      A. Some days, I don't have the bandwidth. It's like drinking from a fire hose.

      Q. Do people notice that you're a cliché expert?
      A. No, they can't get their arms around that. But they aren't incented to, and benchmarking the metrics is a challenge.

      Q. Is it hard to keep up on all the new clichés?
      A. Harder than nailing Jell-O to the wall.

      Q. How do you keep track of all the clichés?
      A. It's like herding cats. I walk the walk and talk the talk.

      Q. Can you anticipate if a phrase is going to become a cliché?
      A. Yes. I skate to where the puck's going to be. Because if you aren't the lead dog, you're not providing a customer-centric pro-active solution.

      Q. Give us a new cliché that we'll be hearing ad nauseum.
      A. Enronitis could be a next-generation player.

      Q. Did incomprehensibility come naturally to you?
      A. I wasn't wired that way, but it became mission-critical as I strategically focused on my go-forward plan.

      Q. Is your work difficult?
      A. It isn't rocket science. It isn't brain surgery. When you drill down to the granular level, it's basic blocking and tackling.

      Q. How do you stay ahead of others in the buzzword industry?
      A. Net-net, my value proposition is based on maximizing synergies and being first to market with a leveraged, value-added deliverable. That's the opportunity space on a level playing field.

      Q. Does everyone in business eventually devolve into mouthing the sort of mindless drivel you spout?
      A. If you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, you're a duck. They all drink the Kool-Aid.

      Q. Do you read "Dilbert" in the newspaper?
      A. My knowledge base is deselective of fiber media.

      Q. Does that mean "no"?
      A. Negative.

      Q. DOES THAT MEAN "NO"?
      A. Let's take your issues offline.

      END

  • Power Grab (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sstamps ( 39313 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @04:26PM (#5282511) Homepage
    IANA and the RIRs are pretty much the last vestiges of the "independent Internet" authorities as we know them. Once ICANN gets their grubby hands on IANA, I think the final nail is in the coffin of the "free (as in speech) Internet".

    What part of this does anyone NOT see as hideously WRONG?! Every day, another domino falls, and I feel more and more like a slave to the Pharoahs of Washington D.C. Is there nothing left for us to do except just sit the hell down and accept our yoke of submission like a good little peon?

    What banner do we have that the vast majority of us can rally under to stop this stupidity? I mean, we all pay lip service to "supporting the cause", but action is pretty thin right now. I'm one to talk, too. :(

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Power Grab (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NoTheory ( 580275 )
        Perspective is a funny thing. What can be classified as "life threatening" depends highly on the level of integration of whatever technology we happen to be discussing. Since computer networking, and in particular global networking has become so vital to the economies of the world (and hell, life as we know it. I met my g/f online first, long before we met face to face), it is not surprising that the people who are currently in power wish to make sure they have a firm hold on it. But, as always, government control does cut both ways. So is it life threatening? No. Is it threatening to way of life? Perhaps.

      • Re:Power Grab (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rabidcow ( 209019 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @07:23PM (#5284109) Homepage
        Its just a couple computers strung together with some wire, air waves, and carrying a few bits.

        The printing press only produced a bunch of letters on paper, and look what it has achieved. Don't trivialize communication.
      • What the hell are you getting inflamed about?

        It's just someone posting their thoughts on /., an activity certainly much less significant than the activities of IANA.

        Don't you think it's maybe a little ironic to passionately object to someone feeling passionately about something?

        A little perspective maybe.

        Moreover, the numbers are not pretend or unimportant. Notwithstanding your intentional mischaracterization, I'm sure you know that. A power grab is a power grab is a power grab. Myself, I passionately object to that kind of bad behavior.

  • I sense a 180 coming up (Score:4, Funny)

    by unitron ( 5733 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @04:26PM (#5282516) Homepage Journal
    Whatta ya bet Dyson's gonna try to jump back on the ICANN bandwagon she just jumped off of?

  • Maybe the best solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by haplo21112 ( 184264 ) <haplo@epithnaFREEBSD.com minus bsd> on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @04:30PM (#5282549) Homepage
    Perhaps its time that the running of the internet be taken out of any one nations hands. Perhaps the correct solution is to no longer leave the controlling body's in the hands of the US. Perhaps the running of the internet should become a United Nations function?

    • Good idea... bordering on brilliant (Score:4, Insightful)

      by unicorn ( 8060 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @04:35PM (#5282684)
      Because god knows the UN has proven to be a wise organization, capable of managing almost all the worlds affairs. Preserving peace, etc. And nobody would ever dare to do things that would go against UN decisions, or would sidestep the UN entirely.
      • Damn. Couldn't have put it better myself.
      • Because god knows the UN has proven to be a wise organization, capable of managing almost all the worlds affairs. Preserving peace, etc.

        Hmm... how many World Wars were there before the United Nations? Two?

        And how many have there been since? None... (yet)


      • The UN is a half deflated beach ball with a brick inside. That brick is the U.S.

        A lot of people hate the U.N. because, "oh look, other countries have different opinions, goals, and interests than us." Those people are made of dense bricklike material. I saw a piece of propaganda in the paper today that was called Get US Out! These idiots want influence over other countries, but how is destroying the U.N. supposed to accomplish that.

        Nuts want to rule the world but don't even know why.

    • Re:Maybe the best solution (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @04:45PM (#5283047) Journal
      Perhaps its time that the running of the internet be taken out of any one nations hands. Perhaps the correct solution is to no longer leave the controlling body's in the hands of the US. Perhaps the running of the internet should become a United Nations function?

      It is perfectly clear that no body whatsoever should be in control of the internet. ICANN holds no enforceable positions. They don't sway judges. They are in control because all the large companies that do the business of running the net are in control of ICANN. So long as those large companies all operate under the ICANN rules, then it's as if ICANN rules the net. There's no way to force them to rock the boat at ICANN except to take away your dollars.

      I think the only important thing to do is remove public funding of ICANN. Once Verisign/Worldcom/Whoever has to run ICANN on their own dime, then we won't have this kind of confusion. If they want to keep public funding of ICANN, then they better damn well make *every* seat open to public elections.
      • Did it cross your mind that once the large corporations were fully funding ICANN, they would likely assume that if they aren't financially dependent on public funding, then they should be allowed carte blanche to arrange things entirely to their convenience, without any lip service towards the public.
        • They are already allowed carte blanche to arrange things entirely to their convenience, and they pay no lip service to the public.

          If ICANN were no longer a government funded body, and could only recommend standards to their participants, then we'd have nothing to argue over. It'd be like the IETF. The only people that the members of the IETF answer to is their own customers, right?

          I mean, if you want your own TLD, you are free to set up your own root server, right? ICANN can't take you to court, can they? If you want Verisign to pay lip service to the public, the public will have to stop giving their money to Verisign.
      • I think the only important thing to do is remove public funding of ICANN.

        Yeah, like ICANN couldn't find a way to support itself financially. How much could they get for a custom TLD? How much could they get for a /16? or /8?

        Any organization that runs the internet will never be beholden to the U.S. taxpayer for financial support. They'll find a way to extort whatever the funds they need from whoever wants to maintain the status quo.

        What should happen is for the world's telecom companies to take a proactive approach to the internet...form their own international body to be in charge of assigning IPs. Since they control the backbones of the internet, they'll be no one to stop them. Since they control everyone's access to the internet, they'll be able to gain control without the average internet user even noticing. All the IANA does is just dole out large chunks of IPs to the telecom companies anyways, why not eliminate the middle man?
    • They could pass a resolution, but doing something about it wouldn't happen.

      If they cannot stand behind their votes they need to disband. The UN is a fucking joke.

      • The UN is a fucking joke.

        It's supposed to be a place where concerns can be aired and listened to. Every time a government questions the wisom of what is happening, all we hear from the White House is "this institution is in danger of becoming irrelevant.". They said it about the UN, now they're saying it about NATO. The message is very clear, do as we wish, or be deemed irrelevant. The current US administration does not seem to consider any other nation to be a peer, they are classed as either 'allies', 'enemies' or irrelevant nuisances to be brushed aside. There is a lot of goodwill being burned right now.
        • Bah. Don't bother with the smelly little troll. Let him crawl back into his biometrically-secured bunker, and wait for the rest of the world to forget about him.

          I only have one issue with your post. I'm not sure the US has had all that much goodwill since the late-1950s. Even so, George W. certainly is burning it as fast as he can.

    • Re:Maybe the best solution (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tms&infamous,net> on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @05:20PM (#5283325) Homepage
      Perhaps the running of the internet should become a United Nations function?

      I was just thinking that perhaps it should be handed over to the ITU [itu.int]. If they can get the world's phone systems talking to one another, the Internet should be a piece of cake in comparison. (You ever look at telephony protocols? You don't want to. Trust me.)

      • Yeah, ITU...great idea. Let us all harken back to that Simpsons episode where the smart people are put in charge of the town. Meanwhile, if you read the article cited you will come across a URL. A URL that says a little something about why the ITU wouldn't necessarily be a good idea. Maybe you could check it [icannwatch.org] out?
      • I was just thinking that perhaps it should be handed over to the ITU [itu.int]. If they can get the world's phone systems talking to one another, the Internet should be a piece of cake in comparison. (You ever look at telephony protocols? You don't want to. Trust me.)

        The telephone protocols having the extra complication that you have a situation of NANP and rest of the planet. Which somehow have to manage to interconnect.
    • Perhaps its time that the running of the internet be taken out of any one nations hands. Perhaps the correct solution is to no longer leave the controlling body's in the hands of the US.

      A big part of the problem is overuse of gTLDs resulting in a hierarchical naming system being used as though it is a few flat namespaces. A DNS name is functionally similar to a telephone number or a postal address.

      Perhaps the running of the internet should become a United Nations function?

      When the US government is doing it now? You're joking, right?

  • Ruination... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by este ( 600616 )
    It seems ICANN is headed the way of so many other organizations that have forged a "special" relationship wih the givernment. Inevitably, we've all seen how this type of government-backed exclusivity causes the organization to ge just plain lazy, since they're not under pressure to perform if they're under contract. Why the DoC's huge interest in securing this setup? I bet it's not arbitrary....

    BTW, -CLIT-.......slashdot has a neat section that features writing reviews.....review yourself, and post your story accordingly. Or face the bitch-slap of moderation, killing your karma forever. ::este::

  • Earth to DoC (Score:5, Informative)

    by SubtleNuance ( 184325 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @05:18PM (#5283302) Journal
    That is very interesting news considering This article [theregister.co.uk] at The Register [theregister.co.uk] . The article talks about how Eurpoean top-level registries take over the technical task of running the Internet if ICANN cannot be relied upon to do a proper job -- because ICANN cannot seperate their Political machinations from the technical aspects of the DNS.

    A good example would be ICANN's desire to create a artifical scarcity of TLDs to maintain 'value in the namespace'...

  • I Wish ... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    that Jon Postel was still with us. Then, something like this wouldn't have happened.

  • And in other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @06:28PM (#5283822)
    To better reflect its changing mission and increasing scope, the company ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has changed its name UCANT (Universal Controller of All Network Traffic).
    --
    Propz to the dead tuesday nighterz.

  • It would be good (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 )
    for everyone to always remember, that icann, or any other number or name registry only gets any power because people choose to use it as a reference. I can set up an IP network of any size I like, and address it however I like, and anyone else joining up with me is free to do what they want as well.

    I'm not saying "we can just ignore icann.. let's have anarchy..".. but, ultimately, if they go too far, the major backbone providers can simply ignore them. As long as we all play off roughly the same page, stuff will still work just fine.
  • Take .GOV and .MIL domains for example, why should the usa keep these for themselves? if they want domains for exclusive use by their own government, they should use gov.us and mil.us, just like every other country is.
    The .gov and .mil domains should be either available to legitimate governmental bodies in any country, or split into subdomains according to country (eg .us.gov .de.gov etc)
    Why should the usa get 3 top level domains for it`s exclusive use? dont other countries deserve identical treatment?
    • because the internet grew out of a US education and government developed network....duh....and .gov, .mil, and .edu are too entrenched to be given up for general use

      oh, and .us isn't really used by the US government, in fact, if i remember correctly they were trying to sell it off recently
    • Take .GOV and .MIL domains for example, why should the usa keep these for themselves?
      Because the .mil TLD is the reason the Internet exists in the first place. ARPANET was a project under the DOD, a US government department (hence the .gov TLD).

      if they want domains for exclusive use by their own government, they should use gov.us and mil.us, just like every other country is.
      They should just be thankful they're allowed their own namespace.

      The .gov and .mil domains should be either available to legitimate governmental bodies in any country, or split into subdomains according to country (eg .us.gov .de.gov etc)
      Why change now? The present system is working fine.

      Why should the usa get 3 top level domains for it`s exclusive use? dont other countries deserve identical treatment?
      No. If they expend the resources to invent a separate global computer network, then they can administer the domains any way they please.
      • The present system may work, but it is unfair. Using black people as slaves worked too, and it too was not fair, just because something works doesnt mean it cant be done in a better way.
        We, non americans, should be greatfull we get a third of the number of TLD`s you do? Maybe the black slaves should have been greatfull to get a third of the priveleges their white masters enjoyed, but I dont think any black man would agree to that.
        As someone else has already pointed out, the US government only exists because of european, mostly british, colonization/invasion (depending which way you look at it)
        As i understand it, the original RFC stated that gov/mil/com/net/org were global TLD`s for use by all countries (.int came later)
        Also, the URL http://www.nic.gov/help_rfc2146.html - a paper published by the US government suggests that government domains should be migrated under .fed.us (federal government of the us - makes sense no?) To quote:
        "This document anticipates the migration of the .GOV domain into the FED.US domain, in keeping with common practice on the Internet today."

        You will also find that ARPANET predates dns by some years, and i`m pretty sure non american countries were linked in long before dns became widespread.
        You also can`t say the usa created a global network, they created an american network which other countries linked to, i severely doubt the us government setup any of the network infrastructure in other countries.
        • The present system may work, but it is unfair. Using black people as slaves worked too, and it too was not fair, just because something works doesnt mean it cant be done in a better way.
          We, non americans, should be greatfull we get a third of the number of TLD`s you do? Maybe the black slaves should have been greatfull to get a third of the priveleges their white masters enjoyed, but I dont think any black man would agree to that.
          That is a terrible analogy! Any way you look at it, slavery is immoral.

          DNS is simply a system for making it easier to address computers, so people don't have to remember a bunch of numbers.

          Comparing the two is absolutely ludicrous.

          As someone else has already pointed out, the US government only exists because of european, mostly british, colonization/invasion (depending which way you look at it)
          That's not telling the whole story though. The US government was formed not because of, but as a reaction to, the tyrannical (at that time) British government.

          As i understand it, the original RFC stated that gov/mil/com/net/org were global TLD`s for use by all countries (.int came later)
          I don't know, I haven't looked into it. But, I know how the present system works in practice.

          Also, the URL http://www.nic.gov/help_rfc2146.html - a paper published by the US government suggests that government domains should be migrated under .fed.us (federal government of the us - makes sense no?) To quote: "This document anticipates the migration of the .GOV domain into the FED.US domain, in keeping with common practice on the Internet today."
          What it anticipated wasn't very widespread. Besides, if you finish reading the RFC, it nowhere suggests the .gov TLD would be opened to non-US governments.

          You will also find that ARPANET predates dns by some years, and i`m pretty sure non american countries were linked in long before dns became widespread.
          That's my whole point. It was a US network to begin with, and others linked to it. Since they're linking to our network, and not the other way around, they'll have to follow our rules.

          You also can`t say the usa created a global network, they created an american network which other countries linked to, i severely doubt the us government setup any of the network infrastructure in other countries.
          Actually, much of the infrastructure was developed by the US. Most of the undersea telecommunications cables were laid by the US. Also, our overseas military bases were probably linked before their host countries were in many cases.
          • Slavery may not be the best analogy, but it makes the point... that just because something works, doesnt mean there is no reason to change it.
            Your attitude is very widespread among americans, the "we own the world" attitude, when in reality you dont even rightfully own the land your standing on. Do you advocate the taking of land by force? or are only americans and their friends allowed to do this... and when "inferior" races such as the iraqi`s decide to invade countries such as kuwait, it should be blocked. It is this attitude that fosters such hatred for the usa in nations around the world, not just afghanistan and iraq.. but many more who keep silent out of fear more than anything else. It is the american government that is among the most corrupt in the world, for different reasons than countries such as iraq, but just as corrupt. The usa just has a larger number of dictators, working together to line their own pockets, Iraq is an oil rich country... it wouldn`t surprise me to learn that the war against iraq is designed to install a more business-friendly government that will allow american business to profit from the oil reserves of iraq, businesses such as those george bush is tied to.
            Back to the subject at hand tho, even tho the internet started life in the US, other countries have invested large amounts of money in the infrastructure since, ESPECIALLY in the EU, in some places of the EU internet access is more widespread than in the usa nowadays, and i read somewhere about european users outnumbering american users.
            I`m sure many technologies which americans take for granted nowadays were invented in other countries, Just look at the popularity of various technological items from japan. I bet the computer your using right now has many components produced in asian countries, would it be fair if cutting edge technology was sold only to asians, and americans got last years leftovers? Japanese and european cars are also very popular in america, and often regarded as being superior to american cars, Would you be happy if they said "We made these cars, you should be gratefull we let you drive our 20yr old skoda`s atall"
            • Slavery may not be the best analogy, but it makes the point... that just because something works, doesnt mean there is no reason to change it.
              No, slavery is not at all analogue to this situation. Change for the sake of change is never good, and many times very bad. Only change for the better is good.

              Your attitude is very widespread among americans, the "we own the world" attitude, when in reality you dont even rightfully own the land your standing on.
              I don't hold any thoughts that we own the world, and neither do most Americans. When you get right down to it, there isn't a single location in the world where any people rightfully own the land they're currently occupying. If you go far enough back into history, you'll find a period when it changed hands in less than ideal conditions. I don't know where you're from, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples from there also.

              Do you advocate the taking of land by force? or are only americans and their friends allowed to do this...
              No, and I don't think it should be allowed to anyone. Most of America wasn't taken by force, but by treaty. I agree many of the treaties were in bad faith, but they're over 100 years old. Since then we haven't really acquired more territory. Europe can't say the same thing (although they've given most of it up by now).

              and when "inferior" races such as the iraqi`s decide to invade countries such as kuwait, it should be blocked.
              Maybe you're a racist, but I believe there is only one race: the human race. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and raped, murdered, pillaged, and burned the country, we rightfully perceived a threat to our national security and ejected them from Kuwait. Unfortunately we left the job unfinished.

              It is this attitude that fosters such hatred for the usa in nations around the world, not just afghanistan and iraq.. but many more who keep silent out of fear more than anything else.
              That's funny, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq don't hate the US. Many places have a love-hate relationship with us, they want what we have: freedom and opportunity, but think we're decadent and immoral.

              It is the american government that is among the most corrupt in the world, for different reasons than countries such as iraq, but just as corrupt. The usa just has a larger number of dictators, working together to line their own pockets, Iraq is an oil rich country...
              I'll be the first to admit I don't trust most of our elected officials, but that's the whole point. If we don't like them, we can remove them in the next election. Many people in the world have little or no choice in who governs their country. Here in the US, we are sure to let the politicians know who they work for, the people. But America isn't even close to being the most corrupt. Most of our government's operation is open and public.

              it wouldn`t surprise me to learn that the war against iraq is designed to install a more business-friendly government that will allow american business to profit from the oil reserves of iraq, businesses such as those george bush is tied to.
              Right, spending $100 billion on a war and $40 billion on rebuilding the country for a few barrels of oil makes a lot of economic sense. We import a much larger share of our oil from Venezuela, but we're not getting involved with their current problems. If this were really about oil, we'd be going after Venezuela first.

              Back to the subject at hand tho, even tho the internet started life in the US, other countries have invested large amounts of money in the infrastructure since, ESPECIALLY in the EU, in some places of the EU internet access is more widespread than in the usa nowadays, and i read somewhere about european users outnumbering american users.
              So? They're perfectly able to start their own, competing DNS. Internet connectivity may be rising in Europe, but not anywhere nearly as fast as in Asia. South Korea is the most connected country in the world, with over half the population online, and the largest percentage with broadband access too.

              I`m sure many technologies which americans take for granted nowadays were invented in other countries, Just look at the popularity of various technological items from japan. I bet the computer your using right now has many components produced in asian countries, would it be fair if cutting edge technology was sold only to asians, and americans got last years leftovers?
              There isn't much current technology invented completely outside the US. However, some foresighted people in Asia realized they could produce semi-conductors and other computer parts more cheaply than the US or elsewhere. That's one of the benefits of globalization. Their countries don't have much in the way of natural resources, but they're as capable as any other, and have proved more capable than most, to manufacture and assemble finished products.

              Japanese and european cars are also very popular in america, and often regarded as being superior to american cars, Would you be happy if they said "We made these cars, you should be gratefull we let you drive our 20yr old skoda`s atall"
              Yes, Asian cars are popular for their value and European cars are considered prestigious. However, many of these cars are manufactured and assembled right here in the US. They may be superior in some aspects, but that's a very subjective, personal opinion. Different people like different cars better.
              • But the $140 billion you speak of is the state`s money, and not the politicians.... if they embezzled such a large amount of money people would kick up a fuss, so instead they spend other peoples money to make sure they make their own in the future.

                Your right about asia, which furthur proves that the internet is now a truly global network which should be equal for all.

                There are competing dns services, but as with anything.. if it doesn`t have large amounts of money behind it, then it will never become popular with the masses, furthurmore it would defeat the purpose of the internet - a free network that`s open to all. If certain sites were available only to users of a given dns service, then it would segment the internet, and it is also this isolation that will prevent competing dns services from gaining a foothold - it's useless until theres a critical mass of users, but there will never be a critical mass of users because people will percieve it as useless.

                Cars will often be assembled close to their target market for reasons of cost, it isn`t cheap to ship thousands of cars over from japan.

                As for this myth that citizens have any real power over the government, consider this..
                In order to effect a change you have to spread the word, not only this but you have to shout your views louder than the politicians your trying to get rid of.. But remember that propoganda COSTS MONEY... and those established politicians are the ones who both have money, and are in a good position to make more. Those who are already in positions of power will do everything in their power to maintain the status quo, that is, power and money for them, and the wool pulled over the eyes of everyone else. Remember being elected is not about who has the best views, it`s about who has the best marketting. Look at Adolf Hitler and all the nazi propoganda, designed to promote the nazi`s as the superior race and to turn the german people against the jews. Propoganda WORKS, but propoganda costs MONEY, and those who have large enough sums of money are the same people in league with the existing politicians, scratching each other`s backs.
                There was a good quote i heard once, it reads like this:
                There is only one party to vote for, the status quo party, It comes in 2 colors to keep the masses happy, but it`s really just the same dirty shade of brown underneath.
  • ...to advertise for OpenNIC [unrated.net]!

    Or, you can just go here [opennic.glue] and log in if you're already a member. (If not, see the first link and learn how to resolve the second one.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close