News U.S. Wants To Keep Web

Stating fact does not require or desire logic.

Now, who wrote the first widely used browser? I would imagine Bill Gates's little company take that shizzle, it doesn't actually mean anything though. The WWW, and the first ever browser were created by a British man(not by Britain, important distinction, he gets to be pround, not all of the UK).

I'm not entirely sure if you invent Ideas, I think you have them, but the world wide web was created by Tim Berners Lee, as was stated in my previous post.

I did not suggest that the internet and the web were the same thing.

Arpa created TCP/IP, "it" is far to broad a name for that when theres obviously so much confusion as to who created the internet, the web, etc.

The US didn't really build it either, lots of people did. Whats goods an empty book? I mean, it runs over phone lines, that were already in place, and whats on it was created by millions of people, not one state.

Now I'm not exactly an innocent party in this thread, I've been ott, but come on mate, thats just a pointless comment, all its going to do is offend people.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the suggestion of the UN selling out the Internet for something else.

But, regardless of all that, if you want to make a thread bashing the UN go ahread, I don't care, in this thread I have declared many times that I am not for the UN controlling the internet or WWW. I want an independant body doing it. So either you've not read the thread, or you've read it, but are dying to pick a fight against someone about the UN. Just because I dont want the US to have total control over the net doesn't mean I want the UN to have total control. It's not that simple

The USA created TCP/IP, that doesn't mean they deserve master rights over everything that TCP/IP is used for. Whether you believe it or not, the internet is not yours, it isn't anyones. While the majority of servers and things like DNS servers exist in the US, there is nothing stopping anyone else from transferring to servers within their own country, and theres also nothing stopping any country from building their own complete network of DNS servers.

Now I'm sure Da Dego would want me to put this tactfully, so I'll try. You shouldn't judge a book by its cover. The US is run by someone who has only answered the question of whether he took drugs by saying he didn't take drugs after some date in the late '80's(IIRC) and is a self confessed ex-alcoholic. Those things on their own don't neccesarily mean he'll make a bad president, and Angelina Jolie's eccentricities don't neccesarily mean she'll be a bad goodwill ambassidor. An orginisation the size of the UN shouldn't be judged fully based on its attempt at garnering some good PR.

EDIT: Ok, right:

Can you show me EXACTLY where I said that please? Because after me explaining these things in what I thought to be fairly simple ways, I've obviously either direly screwed up or you're making things up. Sorry, but the implication that I've called HTTP and the internet the same thing is really pissing me off. If I've done it, quote it and I'll edit that to be accurate, if not then stop implying I did.

Edit 2(edited): Never mind, should have finished reading that post.

 

Don't pander to him, you didn't say the internet is http, so don't give him an inch. You said the web was http which is a perfectly passable comment.

 

The unedit was actually regarding Breachs post, I read the begginging, wrote it off as one thing, edited, then read it all and realised it was another, so edited again

Don't worry, I'm still very keen to see where exactly I said the internet and HTTP were the same thing

 

More alienation

This seems to be all about the money. Remember, we wanted the UN in the first place. What the heck would it hurt if the UN took control of it? The U.S. would still have a slice of the Net Pie. This is just going to alienate ourselves from the rest of the world powers, and why would we want that? Why isn't anyone thinking outside the box?
freakin' stupid. The only reason the UN is slow and stupid is because the U.S. wants it their way and no other. No room for negotiation and not respecting the UN means not respecting the other countries that make it up.

 

Holy thread revival, Batman!

Why should the UN take control of it? The US is doing a perfectly fine job. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. In any case, a complex technical system should not be run by commitee. It should be run by technicians.

 

China having a hand in control of the internet is a very bad idea. An AK-47 pointed at your head and a boot on your throat is no way to live.

 

US Keeps Web!

More from the BBC...

More from El Reg...

 

Thought this was rather funny...

As posted on Slashdot:

Source

 

ROFL!

 

Did they honestly think they had any chance of taking control? This charade shows the UN to be the joke that we all know it to be. Wasting money, that doesn't belong to them in the first place, on a meeting whose outcome has no teeth is classic.

 

I remind you, history has shown the UN was correct in refusing to go along with America's plot to invade Iraq on the pretext of WMD. Now you're behaving like mardy-arsed kids.

When the UN agrees with the USA it's a great organisation, when it dares to disagree you slate it as useless.

 

The UN has always been useless and will remain so. Letting it die like the league of nations would be a good idea. It can't be fixed since the foundation it's built upon is flawed.

 

Outside of the US governing the internet, which i agree with (why change something that works), the UN despite is buerocracy is there for a reason - that countrys talk to each other instead of nuking each other. If it were to not exist what would happen then? Oh look, another world war. The whole point of the UN is to provide some basis of diplomacy between countrys of different backgrounds. Obviously noone will never or rarely agree on a subject which doesnt make it useless. Keeping opinions to themselves provides more problems in the long term.

 

Like, say, protect millions from genocide? Countries will still communicate with each other without the UN. But we couldn't eliminate a useless layer of weasels in fancy suits. That would be wrong.

 

The UN doesn't decide to do things on its own, it has councils which have member states representatives in each seat. The UN is the closest thing we have to a global council, if you blame them, you blame in part yourself.

 

Correct. I blame my government for getting involved with the UN and for not evicting the UN from its building in New York.

 

Is that not soverign territory? I'm actually quite curious about that, obviously that wouldn't be considered an obstacle were the US to give the UN the boot, but it'd be intresting to know nonetheless.

 

I believe it is treated like an embassy. This whole mess of intervening in foreign conflicts started after we joined the UN. Our boys shouldn't be sent to fight and die unless it is deemed necessary to protect our security.

 

The US fought in WW1, and that was before the League of Nations, you also fought in WW2 in Europe, which was during the LoNs era, but pre UN.

 

True but not quite what I mean. WW1 wasn't affecting us near as much as WW2 but I'm talking about stuff like Kosovo and Somalia.