http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26612.html
In other words, because of the fucked up happenings in the US, and their influence on the internet, he wants Europe to quarrentine the internet and sever Europe from the rest of the world, internet-wise.
So much for a 'global internet' What a steaming load this guy is trying to preach.
i'd like to bet anyone $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 etc.etc.
(however much that is, if you're really bored you can count it)
that what that guy says about the internet shutting down will never happen. maybe he'd influence people in certain countries (not all the way to shutting it down) but not all of europe.
LOL, yeah, right
So, according to this idiot, if the government of bangladesh makes it illegal to check your e-mail, then hotmail must be shut down because it has global acess.
LOL yeah right. Free Speech is something everyone should have, and it includes websites.
Our internet, our constitution. You want to make the rules? Get your own internet. :spin:
Do you even know what 'taking back the web' really means? It would mean the US and UK millitary hackers duking it out and destroying the 'enemies' websites. This would pretty much ruin both countries economies and bring them down to approximately the shape China is in right now, in other words, depending upon foreign companies for employment. I don't think either nation wants that.
Also, this is an american website!
They are all idiots. They are just stupid politicians that should be shot now. The internet is intended to be a global world connection. It the only place you can get to from almost anywhere on earth. It should never be confined to some single country or continent.
Oh well, I seriously doubt what this idiot said will happen.
If they did so, though, it might cause World War 3! The implications on both parties economies would be so tremendous that they would not hesitate to go to war. If that happened, you, Motzilla, might wind up seing something like that happening if the war was prolonged and the US decided to take out the building with a B-52.
You are being foolish. We would not go to war with europe.
Originally posted by ZZGundam
If they did so, though, it might cause World War 3! The implications on both parties economies would be so tremendous that they would not hesitate to go to war. If that happened, you, Motzilla, might wind up seing something like that happening if the war was prolonged and the US decided to take out the building with a B-52.
World War 3 would most definitely not occur between the United States and Europe. At the very worst, Europe would remain neutral to leave America to fight its world war with whoever(most likely China and its allies). And I'm sure the person speaking about closing the internet, and having a closed European internet, is in the minority. And even so, who the fuck are they to say "take back the internet" when it was the United States who created the first networks for it?
Europeans, I can see, are starting to come out of their post World War caution, and are beginning to assert their influence over world events. The Europeans proved twice before that they're incapable of weild world influence responsibly. The United States barely wields that same power without infuriating everybody on the planet.
Its not entirely Europe's fault though, we depend on European support for many of our actions in world events, but when Europe needs our support for issues concerning the globe, we turn our backs and assert our sovereignity.
Even so, war between the US and Europe is EXTREMELY unlikely, and Great Britain happens to be our greatest ally in Europe.
Can I just point out that "Europe" is not a country and is incabable of making any decisions or actions regarding war?
And since "Europe" is not a country, they can go fuck off because the internet doesn't "belong" to anybody.
Europe is pretty close to being a country, at least the EU member states.
Hopefully you're right! And anyways, Russia wouldn't be involved in it!
Oh, and as for Europe, they were obviously better at controlling Africa then the Africans, since at least they provided peace and really the colonial period was the golden age economically of Africa in many places, although I do think they made mess of things on the Indian Subcontinent and in Indochina, espicially considiering it was the fault of France that Vietnam was ever provoked, since the North Vietnamesse would've never excepted communism had it not been for the fact that they were desperate and needed the support of the USSR to gain indepence.
Originally posted by Starkist
Europe is pretty close to being a country, at least the EU member states.
Yes, actually, in terms of economics, Europe is like a country. Trade barriers between member states of the EU are virtually gone, just like how there are no trade barriers between the individual states in the United States. The EU also makes economic decisions that affect the whole of the EU, and not just single members within the EU. Militarily, the only unity Europe has is through NATO, which also contains the United States. And with exception to Denmark, Britain, and I think one other EU member, all members of the EU now have a common currency, the Euro, and already has Euro banknotes and coinage available.
So economically, the EU is like one big nation.
Recently, we increased tariffs on European steel, so the EU raised tariffs on a number of American goods, namely Citrus, because Florida is a producer of Citrus, and it was also Florida that ultimately gave Bush the election. And it was Bush that signed the law raising tariffs on European steel, because he wanted to bolster support in the steel producing states of the midwest. So Europe is hoping to erode his support in Florida in turn.
Originally posted by ZZGundam
Hopefully you're right! And anyways, Russia wouldn't be involved in it!Oh, and as for Europe, they were obviously better at controlling Africa then the Africans, since at least they provided peace and really the colonial period was the golden age economically of Africa in many places, although I do think they made mess of things on the Indian Subcontinent and in Indochina, espicially considiering it was the fault of France that Vietnam was ever provoked, since the North Vietnamesse would've never excepted communism had it not been for the fact that they were desperate and needed the support of the USSR to gain indepence.
Lets see, alot of the problems facing Africa is due to European colonialism. Colonialism worked because you essentially had a European colonial elite controling the populaces, either by direct and brutal control, or by offering services the Africans couldn't provide for themselves, such as a western education, railroads, industry. However, through out this though, Europes only intention for its colonies was to ship back raw materials to the mother country, and only developed for those colonies colonial governments that could easily be maintained by the mother countries administrative resources and money.
So when Europe pulled out of these countries, they left virtually no government organizations that the Aricans could take over and then administer their own people with. Add to the fact also, that much of the indigeonous populations were uneducated and full of poverty. Add as well abusive colonial styles of administration that remain as well, creating strife among the peoples and their governments. The colonial era(dating back to the 17th thru 19th centuries) practices that remain in Africa are producing severe amounts of economic differences, as well as social problems. Many africans in South African wine countries are alcoholics and have children born with mental disabilities because of severe drinking. This comes from the age old practice of paying vineyard workers with wine instead of cash.
Europe did a much better job of controlling the Africans, not governing them.
The problems with India mainly is the fissure between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims. This is actually the fault of the Mongols, or Mogul emperors who brought Islam with them into the Indian kingdoms of the north. Racially, Pakistanis and Indians are exactly the same, but are radically different because of their irreconcilable religious differences. The British had to deal with this problem first hand with the Sepoy Mutiny, when Hindu Indians and Muslim Indians within the British colonial system started fighting each other.
And then Vietnam became communist despite France and the Soviet Union. Ho Chi Minh had attended some meetings with the European powers following World War I, asking for the independance of European colonies. The Europeans threw him out of said meetings, and Communism seemed to be then, the ideology of anti-imperialism, because of Lenin's revolution. France just happened to be Indochina's Imperialist, so they get the blame of at least being the Imperial appendage that drove Ho Chi Minh to Communism. The Soviet Union only really became involved in Vietnam when the United States got directly involved by taking control of South Vietnam to fight off the Northerners. We got our revenge for that though when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
Russia is actually a signifigant world player, they were the heart of former Soviet Union after all. Right now, the best thing for the US to do is keep talking with Russia and continue to possesse good will. Hopefully in the future, we will see Russia as a member of NATO or even the European Union.
Still though, all that is a whole lot better then having the tribes kill each other and massacre people by the 1000's, since at least they brought order. Oh, and what about Egypt, it wasn't colonized to ship goods back to the motherlands, heck, it didn't have any goods to ship. Besides, lets compare the situation and put it in perspective. Now, the people are guys with a haphazard subsistence lifestyle who farm just to stay alive on terrible land with primitive tools and absolutely no way -either through the use of birds and praying mantises or through the use of pesticides- to keep pests away from their crop and constantly having one case of starving to death or two occuring practically every single year. When the colonists where there, at least they had something better to do then that. Oh, and at least they had protection from the rest of the world.
Originally posted by ZZGundam
Still though, all that is a whole lot better then having the tribes kill each other and massacre people by the 1000's, since at least they brought order. Oh, and what about Egypt, it wasn't colonized to ship goods back to the motherlands, heck, it didn't have any goods to ship. Besides, lets compare the situation and put it in perspective. Now, the people are guys with a haphazard subsistence lifestyle who farm just to stay alive on terrible land with primitive tools and absolutely no way -either through the use of birds and praying mantises or through the use of pesticides- to keep pests away from their crop and constantly having one case of starving to death or two occuring practically every single year. When the colonists where there, at least they had something better to do then that. Oh, and at least they had protection from the rest of the world.
Yeah, it was the decision of those people to cast off the chains of colonialism. An sovereign people should be allowed to determine their own course in the world, and how they will be ruled, be it by themselves or by another country. Most peoples under other governments vie for self rule, but then you have people like the Puerto Ricans who are always voting for Commonwealth status with the US. We give them the option of US Statehood, Commonwealth, or Independance every few years, and the vote percentage is always 50% for Commonwealth status, 49% for Statehood, and 1% for Independance. The Puerto Ricans then demonstrate that at the very least, they all want some involvement with the US.
In my opinion, its better for a people to choose their own government than to be controlled in a paternalist manner by another country without consent of the people they are controlling. If a country wants to be dominated by Europe to reap the economic benefits, great, but if they want to go it alone by themselves, it should be their choice as well.
As a Europian person myself, I got one thing to say:
Far from anyone besides myself to tell me to visit AGN or not.
No European government is going to agree with this guy's views. If Europe severed it's internet connections with the US(and who knows how they'd do it), then they would suffer similar effects to those that any nation(I know Europe is not a nation yet) suffers when it isolates itself.
I am reasonably sure this will not happen. Despite all the shit that goes on in this country in regard to corrupt computer companies and lousy copyright laws, it is no reason for Europe to virtually(pun intended) isolate itself.
That makes a lot of sense. Cut Europe off from the world and it will be a safe place to go on.
Can you imagine how hard this would be to do? That would mean Europeans would not have access to US services and US won't have access to European services on the net.
I also talk to some relatives in Europe over the net. It's cheaper then a phone call.
Now I'm confused. I thought America was screwed up with making laws for the internet. I guess Europeans have some stupid ideas too. :shrug: