Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet IT

Flushing the Net Down the Tubes 329

netcetra writes "From a post by on CircleID by Phillip J. Windley: 'Doc Searls has written a brilliant piece framing the battle for the Net at Linux Journal. ... if you take the time to read just one essay on the Net and the politics surround it this year, read this one.' Quote from Doc himself: 'This is a long essay. There is, however, no limit to how long I could have made it. The subjects covered here are no less enormous than the Net and its future. Even optimists agree that the Net's future as a free and open environment for business and culture is facing many threats. We can't begin to cover them all or cover all the ways we can fight them. I believe, however, that there is one sure way to fight all of these threats at once, and without doing it the bad guys will win. That's what this essay is about.' Also see additional background on the piece on Doc Searls blog."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flushing the Net Down the Tubes

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17, 2005 @02:13AM (#14050153)
    Well, that's what MirrorDot [mirrordot.com] is for.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17, 2005 @02:43AM (#14050230)
    Check out Tim Lee's lengthy response. He argues (and I suspect most Slashdotters will agree) that, "The Internet is a massive, chaotic, fiercely competitive ecosystem. No one carrier owns more than a tiny fraction of its capacity. No one company controls more than a tiny fraction of its content. In short, no one company is ever going to control the Internet." The complete rebuttal is available at http://www.techliberation.com/archives/027010.php [techliberation.com]
  • by BronsCon ( 927697 ) <social@bronstrup.com> on Thursday November 17, 2005 @05:59AM (#14050746) Journal
    Said by DoorFrame:
    Do you really think that argument holds water? Would you consider the 12,000 murders each year in the United States widespread? If that number isn't high enough, what about the 90,000 rapes? Still not high enough, what about 1.1 million car thefts? Suddenly the numbers are looking pretty widespread and yet I don't think anyone would argue there's a problem with laws against murder, rape or car theft. Want to get even higher? How about the 2.1 million burglaries and 2.2 million assaults?

    I believe OP was refering to widespread as meaning it's being done the the vast majority of the population, average people, not hardened criminals.
  • by westlake ( 615356 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:01AM (#14051645)
    Copyright used to last only 14 years.

    It has been a long time, a very long time, since copyrights expired after only fourteen years.

    In 1831, U.S. copyrights wwre extended to twenty-eight years. in 1909, renewals to twenty-eight years. In 1976, the U.S. adopted the Berne formula of life plus fifty years. Copyright Timeline [cni.org]

  • Mirror (Score:3, Informative)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:14AM (#14051744)
    MirrorDot mirror [mirrordot.org] of the Slashdotted LinuxJournal page.
  • Re:I Have ADD (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:04AM (#14052223)
    why in the name of all things holy is this modded insightful?
  • Re:Greed... (Score:3, Informative)

    by HardCase ( 14757 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @02:03PM (#14054290)
    On most of those fronts, we are in poorer shape than we were in 1970.

    Were you alive in 1970? I was 8 years old and I remember it. Tricky Dick was president, Vietnam was in full swing. Inflation was at 6%, heading to 13% by mid-decade. If you were black and lived in the South in 1970, you'd have a different idea of the state of tolerance today. You might want to talk to somebody who was working in 1970 to find out about paying for health care. Routine care was covered by insurance - and we spend less out of pocket today on health care than in 1970 - a lot less.

    When I was eight years old, do you know what I thought about? I thought about atomic bombs and going to fight in Southeast Asia. I had never seen a person of color. I lived in a city in the northwest that was choking on pollution. My country was led by a president who was championing a war that we shouldn't have even been peripherally involved with. The vice president was a mob stooge. My dad made $30,000 a year - a fabulous sum of money that inflation was eating away at. We had one TV and our town had two TV stations. Government spending was recklessly out of control, worse then than today, in terms of inflation adjusted dollars and percentage of GDP.

    Man, I could go on and on. Nobody who was around then can look back 30 years and say that we're in poorer shape now. "That '70's Show" isn't a handbook of the time.

    -h-
  • Re:Greed... (Score:2, Informative)

    by sallgeud ( 12337 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @03:19PM (#14055143)
    On most of those fronts, we are in poorer shape than we were in 1970. Tolerance is a little better now. Health 'coverage' is up, but in 1970, you could afford routine care on just your wages.


    However, what you forget is that we didn't have people going to their doctor every time they got the flu, or getting flu shots, or preventitive care, mental health care and the list goes on. People show up at the Emergency room now for severe heart burn, or a bad cold, even simple viruses...

    My Grandfather went to the doctor less than once a year, and only when things were too terrible to manage with liquor and over the counter pain killers. Of course, he ended up dying of liver and throat cancer... for which he went to the doctor too late... There was no need for coverage in his younger years, because none of the miracle drugs existed... doctors didn't perscribe unnecessary treatements, etc etc.

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Working...