Discussion:
Nicolas Hamilton
(too old to reply)
leonard hofstatder
2018-03-15 11:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Nice piece, I did not know this.


~misfit~
2018-03-15 12:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."

I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
.
2018-03-15 13:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
keefy
2018-03-15 22:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me greatly
that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was always
intended to be available to everyone is becoming so restricted in
availability.
Alan Baker
2018-03-15 22:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me greatly
that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was always
intended to be available to everyone is becoming so restricted in
availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.

The Internet IS available.

That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
keefy
2018-03-15 22:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so restricted
in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which I
mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to access
large amounts of it due to the government of such countries blocking a
lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended information
should only be available to chosen users. And what is it about Nicolas
Hamilton that people in so many countries should not be allowed to know?
I do not know because I do not use VPN or anything similar. Why should
I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for, particularly the first
one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or do you think it should only apply
if you happen to be in a certain part of the globe?
Alan Baker
2018-03-15 23:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so restricted
in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
perfectly:

'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which I
mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to access
large amounts of it due to the government of such countries blocking a
lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended information
should only be available to chosen users. And what is it about Nicolas
Hamilton that people in so many countries should not be allowed to know?
I do not know because I do not use VPN or anything similar. Why should
I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for, particularly the first
one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or do you think it should only apply
if you happen to be in a certain part of the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.

Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
M2T
2018-03-16 01:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
Twat
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-16 03:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Twat
Thanks, braindead.
keefy
2018-03-16 19:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so
restricted in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Thank you for the explanation, however I do not believe it is wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which I
mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to access
large amounts of it due to the government of such countries blocking a
lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended information
should only be available to chosen users. And what is it about Nicolas
Hamilton that people in so many countries should not be allowed to
know? I do not know because I do not use VPN or anything similar. Why
should I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for, particularly the
first one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or do you think it should only
apply if you happen to be in a certain part of the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Wrong, that was ARPA net from which the Internet was developed. It only
existed in America as far as I am aware so the Inter part would not have
applied.
Post by Alan Baker
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
So do you believe the Internet is so different from other types of
media? For instance if you publish an article in a newspaper or magazine
everyone who reads that newspaper or magazine can read the article. But
if you publish it to the Internet you can choose who you allow to read it.

And while I have not purchased an English dictionary yet, partly as they
may not be easily available here in Spain, I would suggest the word
publish is probably closely related to the word public. And who is not a
member of the public?

Sorry if this is becoming a little off-topic.
Alan Baker
2018-03-17 01:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so
restricted in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Thank you for the explanation, however I do not believe it is wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which I
mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to access
large amounts of it due to the government of such countries blocking
a lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended
information should only be available to chosen users. And what is it
about Nicolas Hamilton that people in so many countries should not be
allowed to know? I do not know because I do not use VPN or anything
similar. Why should I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for,
particularly the first one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or do you
think it should only apply if you happen to be in a certain part of
the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations
that would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Wrong, that was ARPA net from which the Internet was developed. It only
existed in America as far as I am aware so the Inter part would not have
applied.
Your lack of understanding is not my problem.

The "inter" in "internet" existed long before it went beyond the US>\.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
So do you believe the Internet is so different from other types of
media? For instance if you publish an article in a newspaper or magazine
everyone who reads that newspaper or magazine can read the article. But
if you publish it to the Internet you can choose who you allow to read it.
If I write an article, I get to decide to whom I provide it.

Period.
Post by keefy
And while I have not purchased an English dictionary yet, partly as they
may not be easily available here in Spain, I would suggest the word
publish is probably closely related to the word public. And who is not a
member of the public?
You think you understand the internet and you can't figure out how to
get an English dictionary in Spain?

Your credibility is disappearing rapidly.
Post by keefy
Sorry if this is becoming a little off-topic.
keefy
2018-03-17 13:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so
restricted in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Thank you for the explanation, however I do not believe it is wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which
I mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to
access large amounts of it due to the government of such countries
blocking a lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended
information should only be available to chosen users. And what is it
about Nicolas Hamilton that people in so many countries should not
be allowed to know? I do not know because I do not use VPN or
anything similar. Why should I? Do you know what the letters WWW
stand for, particularly the first one? Ever heard of globalisation?
Or do you think it should only apply if you happen to be in a
certain part of the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were
looking for a method of communication between their military
installations that would remain whole even after extensive damage due
to nuclear war.
Wrong, that was ARPA net from which the Internet was developed. It
only existed in America as far as I am aware so the Inter part would
not have applied.
Your lack of understanding is not my problem.
The "inter" in "internet" existed long before it went beyond the US>\.
Yes you are right, sorry, I was thinking of "inter" as in
"international" as opposed to inter-network.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
So do you believe the Internet is so different from other types of
media? For instance if you publish an article in a newspaper or
magazine everyone who reads that newspaper or magazine can read the
article. But if you publish it to the Internet you can choose who you
allow to read it.
If I write an article, I get to decide to whom I provide it.
Period.
I agree you choose to whom *you* provide it. But if you provide it to an
organisation that distributes articles I would suggest you are likely to
have given up that level of control. But this is getting a long way from
my original point which was why publish something which clearly has a
link to something of international interest on the Internet if you do
not wish it to be available in so many countries? My mention of
censoring of the Internet or even banning access to it entirely was
really an aside, possibly even a rant.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
And while I have not purchased an English dictionary yet, partly as
they may not be easily available here in Spain, I would suggest the
word publish is probably closely related to the word public. And who
is not a member of the public?
You think you understand the internet and you can't figure out how to
get an English dictionary in Spain?
Your credibility is disappearing rapidly.
I can think of several ways of doing so but by the time I get it and
reply you will have very likely moved on and not be reading this thread
any longer.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Sorry if this is becoming a little off-topic.
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-17 04:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so
restricted in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Thank you for the explanation, however I do not believe it is wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which I
mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to access
large amounts of it due to the government of such countries blocking a
lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended information
should only be available to chosen users. And what is it about Nicolas
Hamilton that people in so many countries should not be allowed to
know? I do not know because I do not use VPN or anything similar. Why
should I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for, particularly the
first one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or do you think it should only
apply if you happen to be in a certain part of the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Wrong, that was ARPA net from which the Internet was developed. It only
existed in America as far as I am aware so the Inter part would not have
applied.
The ARPA net is why the networking protocols are in the public domain. Paid for by the tax payer and not deemed to be a strategic weapon. ARPA net slowly grew into the Internet. Read Clifford Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg" for a look at a pre-web international Internet.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
So do you believe the Internet is so different from other types of
media? For instance if you publish an article in a newspaper or magazine
everyone who reads that newspaper or magazine can read the article. But
if you publish it to the Internet you can choose who you allow to read it.
You sell the magazine. You know that some copies will end up in doctor's waiting rooms, but you still get money for it. And you can enforce copyright: If, for example, James Allen lifts an interview from Joe Saward's mag, Saward has a claim.
Post by keefy
And while I have not purchased an English dictionary yet, partly as they
may not be easily available here in Spain, I would suggest the word
publish is probably closely related to the word public. And who is not a
member of the public?
That you publish something doesn't mean that you don't reserve copyright and don't expect to be paid.

I am struggling to see why there is such an argument going on. People own copyright, and they don't surrender that just because they want to make something available to their subscribers over the internet.

Nor do we have any entitlement to anything just because it is distributed in that way.
Post by keefy
Sorry if this is becoming a little off-topic.
keefy
2018-03-17 13:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so
restricted in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Thank you for the explanation, however I do not believe it is wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which I
mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to access
large amounts of it due to the government of such countries blocking a
lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended information
should only be available to chosen users. And what is it about Nicolas
Hamilton that people in so many countries should not be allowed to
know? I do not know because I do not use VPN or anything similar. Why
should I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for, particularly the
first one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or do you think it should only
apply if you happen to be in a certain part of the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Wrong, that was ARPA net from which the Internet was developed. It only
existed in America as far as I am aware so the Inter part would not have
applied.
The ARPA net is why the networking protocols are in the public domain. Paid for by the tax payer and not deemed to be a strategic weapon. ARPA net slowly grew into the Internet. Read Clifford Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg" for a look at a pre-web international Internet.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
So do you believe the Internet is so different from other types of
media? For instance if you publish an article in a newspaper or magazine
everyone who reads that newspaper or magazine can read the article. But
if you publish it to the Internet you can choose who you allow to read it.
You sell the magazine. You know that some copies will end up in doctor's waiting rooms, but you still get money for it. And you can enforce copyright: If, for example, James Allen lifts an interview from Joe Saward's mag, Saward has a claim.
My point has nothing to do with money and I do not think it is a
copyright issue. I have reiterated it and tried to make it clear in my
response to Alan Baker. It is purely about availability.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
And while I have not purchased an English dictionary yet, partly as they
may not be easily available here in Spain, I would suggest the word
publish is probably closely related to the word public. And who is not a
member of the public?
That you publish something doesn't mean that you don't reserve copyright and don't expect to be paid.
I am struggling to see why there is such an argument going on. People own copyright, and they don't surrender that just because they want to make something available to their subscribers over the internet.
Nor do we have any entitlement to anything just because it is distributed in that way.
Post by keefy
Sorry if this is becoming a little off-topic.
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-17 18:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so
restricted in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Thank you for the explanation, however I do not believe it is wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which I
mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to access
large amounts of it due to the government of such countries blocking a
lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended information
should only be available to chosen users. And what is it about Nicolas
Hamilton that people in so many countries should not be allowed to
know? I do not know because I do not use VPN or anything similar. Why
should I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for, particularly the
first one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or do you think it should only
apply if you happen to be in a certain part of the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Wrong, that was ARPA net from which the Internet was developed. It only
existed in America as far as I am aware so the Inter part would not have
applied.
The ARPA net is why the networking protocols are in the public domain. Paid for by the tax payer and not deemed to be a strategic weapon. ARPA net slowly grew into the Internet. Read Clifford Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg" for a look at a pre-web international Internet.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
So do you believe the Internet is so different from other types of
media? For instance if you publish an article in a newspaper or magazine
everyone who reads that newspaper or magazine can read the article. But
if you publish it to the Internet you can choose who you allow to read it.
You sell the magazine. You know that some copies will end up in doctor's waiting rooms, but you still get money for it. And you can enforce copyright: If, for example, James Allen lifts an interview from Joe Saward's mag, Saward has a claim.
My point has nothing to do with money and I do not think it is a
copyright issue. I have reiterated it and tried to make it clear in my
response to Alan Baker. It is purely about availability.
You're right, you didn't make it about money. But it is about ownership and control, about rights. And we don't have some automatic right to that material just because it's been distributed on a segment of the Internet.

And there's the greater point, and it comes up all the time in many place, and Alan goes to that to. There is not some promise, implied or stated, that the Internet is supposed to make information freely available (in either sense of the word).
keefy
2018-03-17 22:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so
restricted in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Thank you for the explanation, however I do not believe it is wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which I
mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to access
large amounts of it due to the government of such countries blocking a
lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended information
should only be available to chosen users. And what is it about Nicolas
Hamilton that people in so many countries should not be allowed to
know? I do not know because I do not use VPN or anything similar. Why
should I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for, particularly the
first one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or do you think it should only
apply if you happen to be in a certain part of the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Wrong, that was ARPA net from which the Internet was developed. It only
existed in America as far as I am aware so the Inter part would not have
applied.
The ARPA net is why the networking protocols are in the public domain. Paid for by the tax payer and not deemed to be a strategic weapon. ARPA net slowly grew into the Internet. Read Clifford Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg" for a look at a pre-web international Internet.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
So do you believe the Internet is so different from other types of
media? For instance if you publish an article in a newspaper or magazine
everyone who reads that newspaper or magazine can read the article. But
if you publish it to the Internet you can choose who you allow to read it.
You sell the magazine. You know that some copies will end up in doctor's waiting rooms, but you still get money for it. And you can enforce copyright: If, for example, James Allen lifts an interview from Joe Saward's mag, Saward has a claim.
My point has nothing to do with money and I do not think it is a
copyright issue. I have reiterated it and tried to make it clear in my
response to Alan Baker. It is purely about availability.
You're right, you didn't make it about money. But it is about ownership and control, about rights. And we don't have some automatic right to that material just because it's been distributed on a segment of the Internet.
And there's the greater point, and it comes up all the time in many place, and Alan goes to that to. There is not some promise, implied or stated, that the Internet is supposed to make information freely available (in either sense of the word).
Really? And yet my reading has led me to believe that *was* the whole
idea of the Internet in the beginning. The full and frank exchange or
information between *everyone*. What is your understanding of why
ARPAnet developed into Internet and the ideals of those who carried out
that development?
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-18 03:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so
restricted in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Thank you for the explanation, however I do not believe it is wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which I
mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to access
large amounts of it due to the government of such countries blocking a
lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended information
should only be available to chosen users. And what is it about Nicolas
Hamilton that people in so many countries should not be allowed to
know? I do not know because I do not use VPN or anything similar. Why
should I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for, particularly the
first one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or do you think it should only
apply if you happen to be in a certain part of the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Wrong, that was ARPA net from which the Internet was developed. It only
existed in America as far as I am aware so the Inter part would not have
applied.
The ARPA net is why the networking protocols are in the public domain. Paid for by the tax payer and not deemed to be a strategic weapon. ARPA net slowly grew into the Internet. Read Clifford Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg" for a look at a pre-web international Internet.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
So do you believe the Internet is so different from other types of
media? For instance if you publish an article in a newspaper or magazine
everyone who reads that newspaper or magazine can read the article. But
if you publish it to the Internet you can choose who you allow to read it.
You sell the magazine. You know that some copies will end up in doctor's waiting rooms, but you still get money for it. And you can enforce copyright: If, for example, James Allen lifts an interview from Joe Saward's mag, Saward has a claim.
My point has nothing to do with money and I do not think it is a
copyright issue. I have reiterated it and tried to make it clear in my
response to Alan Baker. It is purely about availability.
You're right, you didn't make it about money. But it is about ownership and control, about rights. And we don't have some automatic right to that material just because it's been distributed on a segment of the Internet.
And there's the greater point, and it comes up all the time in many place, and Alan goes to that to. There is not some promise, implied or stated, that the Internet is supposed to make information freely available (in either sense of the word).
Really? And yet my reading has led me to believe that *was* the whole
idea of the Internet in the beginning. The full and frank exchange or
information between *everyone*.
I've read claims like this before. But nobody ever seems to quote some organisation or some prominent engineer who said that the Internet MUST be used for that purpose, was CONCEIVED to that end. That's probably because there was no such aim, nor any original idea that what became the Internet would become so pervasive.
Post by keefy
What is your understanding of why
ARPAnet developed into Internet and the ideals of those who carried out
that development?
Did I say there were ideals? That's what I don't find: somebody who conceived this massive global network and proclaimed some lofty ideals that it must serve.

It's like discussing the motivation or philosophy behind evolution. There isn't one, and it's not required that there be one.
keefy
2018-03-18 08:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so
restricted in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Thank you for the explanation, however I do not believe it is wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which I
mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to access
large amounts of it due to the government of such countries blocking a
lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended information
should only be available to chosen users. And what is it about Nicolas
Hamilton that people in so many countries should not be allowed to
know? I do not know because I do not use VPN or anything similar. Why
should I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for, particularly the
first one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or do you think it should only
apply if you happen to be in a certain part of the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Wrong, that was ARPA net from which the Internet was developed. It only
existed in America as far as I am aware so the Inter part would not have
applied.
The ARPA net is why the networking protocols are in the public domain. Paid for by the tax payer and not deemed to be a strategic weapon. ARPA net slowly grew into the Internet. Read Clifford Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg" for a look at a pre-web international Internet.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
So do you believe the Internet is so different from other types of
media? For instance if you publish an article in a newspaper or magazine
everyone who reads that newspaper or magazine can read the article. But
if you publish it to the Internet you can choose who you allow to read it.
You sell the magazine. You know that some copies will end up in doctor's waiting rooms, but you still get money for it. And you can enforce copyright: If, for example, James Allen lifts an interview from Joe Saward's mag, Saward has a claim.
My point has nothing to do with money and I do not think it is a
copyright issue. I have reiterated it and tried to make it clear in my
response to Alan Baker. It is purely about availability.
You're right, you didn't make it about money. But it is about ownership and control, about rights. And we don't have some automatic right to that material just because it's been distributed on a segment of the Internet.
And there's the greater point, and it comes up all the time in many place, and Alan goes to that to. There is not some promise, implied or stated, that the Internet is supposed to make information freely available (in either sense of the word).
Really? And yet my reading has led me to believe that *was* the whole
idea of the Internet in the beginning. The full and frank exchange or
information between *everyone*.
I've read claims like this before. But nobody ever seems to quote some organisation or some prominent engineer who said that the Internet MUST be used for that purpose, was CONCEIVED to that end. That's probably because there was no such aim, nor any original idea that what became the Internet would become so pervasive.
Post by keefy
What is your understanding of why
ARPAnet developed into Internet and the ideals of those who carried out
that development?
Did I say there were ideals? That's what I don't find: somebody who conceived this massive global network and proclaimed some lofty ideals that it must serve.
It's like discussing the motivation or philosophy behind evolution. There isn't one, and it's not required that there be one.
It is not like "evolution" as what most people think of as evolution is
a natural process not one driven by humans. When people put effort into
something there is a reason they do it. Those were the ideals I was
talking about.
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-18 13:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so
restricted in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Thank you for the explanation, however I do not believe it is wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which I
mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to access
large amounts of it due to the government of such countries blocking a
lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended information
should only be available to chosen users. And what is it about Nicolas
Hamilton that people in so many countries should not be allowed to
know? I do not know because I do not use VPN or anything similar. Why
should I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for, particularly the
first one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or do you think it should only
apply if you happen to be in a certain part of the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Wrong, that was ARPA net from which the Internet was developed. It only
existed in America as far as I am aware so the Inter part would not have
applied.
The ARPA net is why the networking protocols are in the public domain. Paid for by the tax payer and not deemed to be a strategic weapon. ARPA net slowly grew into the Internet. Read Clifford Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg" for a look at a pre-web international Internet.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
So do you believe the Internet is so different from other types of
media? For instance if you publish an article in a newspaper or magazine
everyone who reads that newspaper or magazine can read the article. But
if you publish it to the Internet you can choose who you allow to read it.
You sell the magazine. You know that some copies will end up in doctor's waiting rooms, but you still get money for it. And you can enforce copyright: If, for example, James Allen lifts an interview from Joe Saward's mag, Saward has a claim.
My point has nothing to do with money and I do not think it is a
copyright issue. I have reiterated it and tried to make it clear in my
response to Alan Baker. It is purely about availability.
You're right, you didn't make it about money. But it is about ownership and control, about rights. And we don't have some automatic right to that material just because it's been distributed on a segment of the Internet.
And there's the greater point, and it comes up all the time in many place, and Alan goes to that to. There is not some promise, implied or stated, that the Internet is supposed to make information freely available (in either sense of the word).
Really? And yet my reading has led me to believe that *was* the whole
idea of the Internet in the beginning. The full and frank exchange or
information between *everyone*.
I've read claims like this before. But nobody ever seems to quote some organisation or some prominent engineer who said that the Internet MUST be used for that purpose, was CONCEIVED to that end. That's probably because there was no such aim, nor any original idea that what became the Internet would become so pervasive.
Post by keefy
What is your understanding of why
ARPAnet developed into Internet and the ideals of those who carried out
that development?
Did I say there were ideals? That's what I don't find: somebody who conceived this massive global network and proclaimed some lofty ideals that it must serve.
It's like discussing the motivation or philosophy behind evolution. There isn't one, and it's not required that there be one.
It is not like "evolution" as what most people think of as evolution is
a natural process not one driven by humans.
That's not what I said.
Post by keefy
When people put effort into
something there is a reason they do it. Those were the ideals I was
talking about.
This should be easily dealt with. I have said that I have not come across any such statement of intent, and added that this is probably because what we now have isn't what was planned. I don't believe anybody dreamed up this globe spanning network of domains and the connections between them and announced some lofty intent.

Now, it's hard for me to prove that nobody said something that I don't recall ever being said.

The resolution to all of this should be simple enough, though. Your position is opposite to mine, you assert that there was some such intent, that the Internet was always intended to serve or realise certain ideals. That being the case, all that would be necessary is to find that statement of intent. Not a Lennonesque vision that somebody had, but an organisation, or spokesperson thereof, that set out to build the Internet as we know it, stating those aims.
keefy
2018-03-18 23:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so
restricted in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Thank you for the explanation, however I do not believe it is wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people, by which I
mean those living in big countries like China, are unable to access
large amounts of it due to the government of such countries blocking a
lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't free to
decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators of the
Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they intended information
should only be available to chosen users. And what is it about Nicolas
Hamilton that people in so many countries should not be allowed to
know? I do not know because I do not use VPN or anything similar. Why
should I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for, particularly the
first one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or do you think it should only
apply if you happen to be in a certain part of the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Wrong, that was ARPA net from which the Internet was developed. It only
existed in America as far as I am aware so the Inter part would not have
applied.
The ARPA net is why the networking protocols are in the public domain. Paid for by the tax payer and not deemed to be a strategic weapon. ARPA net slowly grew into the Internet. Read Clifford Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg" for a look at a pre-web international Internet.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose what to do
with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic fact.
So do you believe the Internet is so different from other types of
media? For instance if you publish an article in a newspaper or magazine
everyone who reads that newspaper or magazine can read the article. But
if you publish it to the Internet you can choose who you allow to read it.
You sell the magazine. You know that some copies will end up in doctor's waiting rooms, but you still get money for it. And you can enforce copyright: If, for example, James Allen lifts an interview from Joe Saward's mag, Saward has a claim.
My point has nothing to do with money and I do not think it is a
copyright issue. I have reiterated it and tried to make it clear in my
response to Alan Baker. It is purely about availability.
You're right, you didn't make it about money. But it is about ownership and control, about rights. And we don't have some automatic right to that material just because it's been distributed on a segment of the Internet.
And there's the greater point, and it comes up all the time in many place, and Alan goes to that to. There is not some promise, implied or stated, that the Internet is supposed to make information freely available (in either sense of the word).
Really? And yet my reading has led me to believe that *was* the whole
idea of the Internet in the beginning. The full and frank exchange or
information between *everyone*.
I've read claims like this before. But nobody ever seems to quote some organisation or some prominent engineer who said that the Internet MUST be used for that purpose, was CONCEIVED to that end. That's probably because there was no such aim, nor any original idea that what became the Internet would become so pervasive.
Post by keefy
What is your understanding of why
ARPAnet developed into Internet and the ideals of those who carried out
that development?
Did I say there were ideals? That's what I don't find: somebody who conceived this massive global network and proclaimed some lofty ideals that it must serve.
It's like discussing the motivation or philosophy behind evolution. There isn't one, and it's not required that there be one.
It is not like "evolution" as what most people think of as evolution is
a natural process not one driven by humans.
That's not what I said.
Post by keefy
When people put effort into
something there is a reason they do it. Those were the ideals I was
talking about.
This should be easily dealt with. I have said that I have not come across any such statement of intent, and added that this is probably because what we now have isn't what was planned. I don't believe anybody dreamed up this globe spanning network of domains and the connections between them and announced some lofty intent.
Now, it's hard for me to prove that nobody said something that I don't recall ever being said.
The resolution to all of this should be simple enough, though. Your position is opposite to mine, you assert that there was some such intent, that the Internet was always intended to serve or realise certain ideals. That being the case, all that would be necessary is to find that statement of intent. Not a Lennonesque vision that somebody had, but an organisation, or spokesperson thereof, that set out to build the Internet as we know it, stating those aims.
You appear to be looking for an absolute statement set in stone which,
as you suggest, probably does not exist. But what that statement would
be, if it existed, is what I have learnt is the case. You call it
Lennonesque, I know nothing of Lennon except that he was a member of the
Beatles, if that is the Lennon you allude to. I think that in the times
of the Internet being developed everything did not have to be so well
defined as now. So yes, people did do good work with a broad vision but
perhaps no well defined aim recorded in writing. And my learning leads
me to believe they *did* have the vision of lots of domains spread
across the globe all connected via the Internet. What they did not
envisage was the greed and thirst for control of 21st century society.
My own opinion is that these traits are led by USA and Europe and the
more industrialised and wealthy countries in the world. And that is
where the ideals, which I happen to think are very admirable, are being
put to their death.
~misfit~
2018-03-19 01:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in
your country." I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing
extensions in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola,
Stealthy ...), to using Opera or Epic with their native,
built-in, browser only VPNs, to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to
share information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it
annoys me greatly that the resource that we know as the
Internet, which was always intended to be available to
everyone is becoming so restricted in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the
'adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.'
Thank you for the explanation, however I do not believe it is wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
The Internet IS available.
Or at least parts of it! I have read that a lot of people,
by which I mean those living in big countries like China,
are unable to access large amounts of it due to the
government of such countries blocking a lot of it.
Post by Alan Baker
That doesn't mean that every individual and business isn't
free to decide for him/itself with whom they wish to share
information.
I do not believe this was the intention of the originators
of the Internet. Nothing I have read makes me think they
intended information should only be available to chosen
users. And what is it about Nicolas Hamilton that people in
so many countries should not be allowed to know? I do not
know because I do not use VPN or anything similar. Why
should I? Do you know what the letters WWW stand for,
particularly the first one? Ever heard of globalisation? Or
do you think it should only apply if you happen to be in a
certain part of the globe?
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who
were looking for a method of communication between their
military installations that would remain whole even after
extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Wrong, that was ARPA net from which the Internet was
developed. It only existed in America as far as I am aware so
the Inter part would not have applied.
The ARPA net is why the networking protocols are in the public
domain. Paid for by the tax payer and not deemed to be a
strategic weapon. ARPA net slowly grew into the Internet. Read
Clifford Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg" for a look at a pre-web
international Internet.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Bottom line: the people who create something get to choose
what to do with it. The Internet doesn't change that basic
fact.
So do you believe the Internet is so different from other
types of media? For instance if you publish an article in a
newspaper
or magazine everyone who reads that newspaper or magazine can
read the article. But if you publish it to the Internet you
can choose who you allow to read it.
You sell the magazine. You know that some copies will end up
in doctor's waiting rooms, but you still get money for it. And
you can enforce copyright: If, for example, James Allen lifts
an interview from Joe Saward's mag, Saward has a claim.
My point has nothing to do with money and I do not think it is a
copyright issue. I have reiterated it and tried to make it
clear in my response to Alan Baker. It is purely about
availability.
You're right, you didn't make it about money. But it is about
ownership and control, about rights. And we don't have some
automatic right to that material just because it's been
distributed on a segment of the Internet. And there's the greater
point, and it comes up all the time in
many place, and Alan goes to that to. There is not some promise,
implied or stated, that the Internet is supposed to make
information freely available (in either sense of the word).
Really? And yet my reading has led me to believe that *was* the
whole idea of the Internet in the beginning. The full and frank
exchange or information between *everyone*.
I've read claims like this before. But nobody ever seems to quote
some organisation or some prominent engineer who said that the
Internet MUST be used for that purpose, was CONCEIVED to that end.
That's probably because there was no such aim, nor any original
idea that what became the Internet would become so pervasive.
Post by keefy
What is your understanding of why
ARPAnet developed into Internet and the ideals of those who
carried out that development?
Did I say there were ideals? That's what I don't find: somebody
who conceived this massive global network and proclaimed some
lofty ideals that it must serve. It's like discussing the motivation
or philosophy behind
evolution. There isn't one, and it's not required that there be
one.
It is not like "evolution" as what most people think of as
evolution is a natural process not one driven by humans.
That's not what I said.
Post by keefy
When people put effort into
something there is a reason they do it. Those were the ideals I was
talking about.
This should be easily dealt with. I have said that I have not come
across any such statement of intent, and added that this is probably
because what we now have isn't what was planned. I don't believe
anybody dreamed up this globe spanning network of domains and the
connections between them and announced some lofty intent. Now, it's
hard for me to prove that nobody said something that I
don't recall ever being said. The resolution to all of this should be
simple enough, though. Your
position is opposite to mine, you assert that there was some such
intent, that the Internet was always intended to serve or realise
certain ideals. That being the case, all that would be necessary is
to find that statement of intent. Not a Lennonesque vision that
somebody had, but an organisation, or spokesperson thereof, that set
out to build the Internet as we know it, stating those aims.
You appear to be looking for an absolute statement set in stone which,
as you suggest, probably does not exist. But what that statement would
be, if it existed, is what I have learnt is the case. You call it
Lennonesque, I know nothing of Lennon except that he was a member of
the Beatles, if that is the Lennon you allude to. I think that in the
times of the Internet being developed everything did not have to be
so well defined as now. So yes, people did do good work with a broad
vision but perhaps no well defined aim recorded in writing. And my
learning leads me to believe they *did* have the vision of lots of
domains spread across the globe all connected via the Internet. What
they did not envisage was the greed and thirst for control of 21st
century society. My own opinion is that these traits are led by USA
and Europe and the more industrialised and wealthy countries in the
world. And that is where the ideals, which I happen to think are very
admirable, are being put to their death.
I'm sure that you're aware of this but there's a big difference between 'the
internet' and the 'world wide web'. Before the web the internet was
difficult to navigate for a layperson, the web fixed that to a large degree.
Also there was a founding vision for the web.

I tend to think of 'the internet' as the protocols etc and 'the web' as
something that used those protocols to enable non-geeks access. Others seem
to use the terms interchagably. However I remember when the web took off and
it was a massive change. Before that I only really used my internet
connection for email and usenet.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Mark Jackson
2018-03-19 14:05:27 UTC
Permalink
[snip]

https://xkcd.com/1969/
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
How many foxes does it take before a henhouse
becomes a foxhouse? - Charles P. Pierce
~misfit~
2018-03-19 14:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jackson
[snip]
https://xkcd.com/1969/
Heh! Too true.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-19 14:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Before that I only really used my internet
connection for email and usenet.
and to be a cunt
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-19 03:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
It's like discussing the motivation or philosophy behind evolution. There isn't one, and it's not required that there be one.
It is not like "evolution" as what most people think of as evolution is
a natural process not one driven by humans.
That's not what I said.
Post by keefy
When people put effort into
something there is a reason they do it. Those were the ideals I was
talking about.
This should be easily dealt with. I have said that I have not come across any such statement of intent, and added that this is probably because what we now have isn't what was planned. I don't believe anybody dreamed up this globe spanning network of domains and the connections between them and announced some lofty intent.
Now, it's hard for me to prove that nobody said something that I don't recall ever being said.
The resolution to all of this should be simple enough, though. Your position is opposite to mine, you assert that there was some such intent, that the Internet was always intended to serve or realise certain ideals. That being the case, all that would be necessary is to find that statement of intent. Not a Lennonesque vision that somebody had, but an organisation, or spokesperson thereof, that set out to build the Internet as we know it, stating those aims.
You appear to be looking for an absolute statement set in stone which,
as you suggest, probably does not exist. But what that statement would
be, if it existed, is what I have learnt is the case. You call it
Lennonesque, I know nothing of Lennon except that he was a member of the
Beatles, if that is the Lennon you allude to. I think that in the times
of the Internet being developed everything did not have to be so well
defined as now. So yes, people did do good work with a broad vision but
perhaps no well defined aim recorded in writing. And my learning leads
me to believe they *did* have the vision of lots of domains spread
across the globe all connected via the Internet. What they did not
envisage was the greed and thirst for control of 21st century society.
My own opinion is that these traits are led by USA and Europe and the
more industrialised and wealthy countries in the world. And that is
where the ideals, which I happen to think are very admirable, are being
put to their death.
Here's your starting position in all of this:
"And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me greatly
that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was always
intended to be available to everyone is becoming so restricted in
availability. "

Now, you believe that, but what's absent is the grand declaration of this notion of a full exchange of information, for everybody, everywhere.
keefy
2018-03-19 20:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by keefy
Post by m***@gmail.com
It's like discussing the motivation or philosophy behind evolution. There isn't one, and it's not required that there be one.
It is not like "evolution" as what most people think of as evolution is
a natural process not one driven by humans.
That's not what I said.
Post by keefy
When people put effort into
something there is a reason they do it. Those were the ideals I was
talking about.
This should be easily dealt with. I have said that I have not come across any such statement of intent, and added that this is probably because what we now have isn't what was planned. I don't believe anybody dreamed up this globe spanning network of domains and the connections between them and announced some lofty intent.
Now, it's hard for me to prove that nobody said something that I don't recall ever being said.
The resolution to all of this should be simple enough, though. Your position is opposite to mine, you assert that there was some such intent, that the Internet was always intended to serve or realise certain ideals. That being the case, all that would be necessary is to find that statement of intent. Not a Lennonesque vision that somebody had, but an organisation, or spokesperson thereof, that set out to build the Internet as we know it, stating those aims.
You appear to be looking for an absolute statement set in stone which,
as you suggest, probably does not exist. But what that statement would
be, if it existed, is what I have learnt is the case. You call it
Lennonesque, I know nothing of Lennon except that he was a member of the
Beatles, if that is the Lennon you allude to. I think that in the times
of the Internet being developed everything did not have to be so well
defined as now. So yes, people did do good work with a broad vision but
perhaps no well defined aim recorded in writing. And my learning leads
me to believe they *did* have the vision of lots of domains spread
across the globe all connected via the Internet. What they did not
envisage was the greed and thirst for control of 21st century society.
My own opinion is that these traits are led by USA and Europe and the
more industrialised and wealthy countries in the world. And that is
where the ideals, which I happen to think are very admirable, are being
put to their death.
"And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me greatly
that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was always
intended to be available to everyone is becoming so restricted in
availability. "
Now, you believe that, but what's absent is the grand declaration of this notion of a full exchange of information, for everybody, everywhere.
Yes, I understand your point and I think you understand mine. So maybe
it is time we agree to differ.

Jimbo
2018-03-16 23:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Or was it a desire of the US government to allow research institutions to share access to supercomputers?
Alan Baker
2018-03-17 01:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jimbo
Post by Alan Baker
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Or was it a desire of the US government to allow research institutions to share access to supercomputers?
No. It was not.

That was something useful to do with it after it was created.
Jimbo
2018-03-17 02:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Jimbo
Post by Alan Baker
The originator of the Internet was the US government, who were looking
for a method of communication between their military installations that
would remain whole even after extensive damage due to nuclear war.
Or was it a desire of the US government to allow research institutions to share access to supercomputers?
No. It was not.
That was something useful to do with it after it was created.
There were a number of things going on in the early 60's which could all be said to be the origin of the Internet. There was the RAND work on secure communications for the military but there was also work going on at MIT on packet switching and NPL in the UK were also developing their packet network concept. These three projects were going on at about the same time and all came together with DARPA funding and leading to ARPAnet.

MIT (1961-1967)
RAND (1962-1965)
NPL (1964-1967)
Martin Harran
2018-03-17 09:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me
greatly that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was
always intended to be available to everyone is becoming so restricted
in availability.
I'm sorry, but that's specious.
I don't even know what that word means!
Then I suggest the purchase of a dictionary, because the word applies
No purchase necessary, plenty of free ones on that Internet thing that
keefy is so keen on :)

[..]
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-16 02:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by keefy
Post by .
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
There are SOOO many ways around this, from installing extensions
in Chrome or Firefox (Proxmate, Hola, Stealthy ...), to using
Opera or Epic with their native, built-in, browser only VPNs,
to mention but a few.
And the whole point of the Internet always was ....... to share
information with people only in certain countries?
I know it is not your fault nor that of the OP but it annoys me greatly
that the resource that we know as the Internet, which was always
intended to be available to everyone is becoming so restricted in
availability.
That wasn't the aim at all. What is now the 'net started off as some military installations and universities that did work for them.

What's happening here is good old copy right and distribution rights, nothing that the 'net supercedes. HBO own that video, and they get to decide how widely to make it available.
bra
2018-03-15 13:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
Canada likewise :-(
Sir Tim
2018-03-15 19:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by bra
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
Canada likewise :-(
And the UK
Alan Baker
2018-03-15 21:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Tim
Post by bra
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
Canada likewise :-(
And the UK
Chrome and hola!VPN...
leonard hofstatder
2018-03-15 14:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
Sorry about that. I just copied link from Max Papis' Twitter feed.
~misfit~
2018-03-15 23:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by leonard hofstatder
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
Sorry about that. I just copied link from Max Papis' Twitter feed.
Sweet. You weren't to know. ;-)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
geoff
2018-03-15 19:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by leonard hofstatder
Nice piece, I did not know this.
http://youtu.be/GZVMTuSsEX4
" ! The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
I'm in New Zealand. Fooking HBO.
Snap.

geoff
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-16 03:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Snap.
Fag.
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-16 03:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
I'm in New Zealand.
Still a loser.
Loading...