Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Surprising display of ignorance... (Score 1) 186

Last I checked, the Federal Government didn't run any of the root nameservers so I can't see any way they could be considered to belong to the US (as opposed to the private companies that own them). Not that owning the roots would mean much, since all they do is identify the (privately-owned) nameservers belonging to the various (privately-owned) registries that control the top-level domains. The only TLDs owned by the US Government (ie. the US Government operates the registries for them) are .gov and .mil, and the changes to IANA won't change how those two registries operate.

And amusingly the politicians have it backwards: ICANN already manages IANA, the change will be to remove IANA from ICANN control and make it an independent authority in it's own right. IANA was put under ICANN control in 1998, after the death of Jon Postel who basically had been IANA up until then (a controlling authority for assigning IP address blocks, well-known port numbers, AS numbers and other technical identifiers was absolutely necessary for the Internet to function, and since nobody else was doing it Jon essentially arrogated to himself the authority to handle it).

Comment I'd like to hear a coherent argument (Score 1, Interesting) 186

That our authority over DNS is legally US government property in any sense the framers would have agreed upon, even stretching that concept of property to include intangible property.

Even if you can argue that DNS is American government property, it's pretty useless property. Since it is largely administered in a decentralized fashion, if the rest of the world wants it can set up its own DNS system and have people in their country point to their preferred root servers.

Comment Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... (Score 1) 391

My position is that anyone can have any opinion they want, and that the significance of that opinion to others depends on whatever level of trust the claimer can command. This puts some people in a de facto privileged position. This can be rational (e.g. privileging an oncologist's opinions on cancer over a layman's) and in other cases not (privileging a fellow mom's opinions about vaccines over an immunologist or toxicologist).

So my point is that you CAN make any of the claims you suggested, but your authority won't carry much weight because you're just a random bloke on the Internet. You would have to make a convincing argument. However even then there are lots of very credible-sounding arguments out there that don't sound credible to someone who has actual knowledge.

The bottom line is knowing the truth of any claim is quite difficult, particularly when it involves jargon. In general the judgment of someone who has spent some time studying an issue is more be trusted than what "stands to reason" in your own judgment. Even so, an expert should still be able to give a coherent defense of his positions.

So in the case of this frog meme, I have no particular reason to doubt ADL; however if it were important to me I would look at the evidence ADL puts forward in justification of their position. I do not necessarily agree with ADL on everything (e.g. on Muslims displaying tokens bearing the Shahada), but they have more than any other group tracked violent extremist groups and their affiliates and therefore are in at least a position to compare and contrast the symbols used. If, however, it were an organization like Kahane Chai, I would feel no particular reason to look into their reasoning because they're a racist group. Life is simply to short to treat a source that is consistently nonsense as if it might be credible.

Comment Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... (Score 1) 391

Well, actually technically speaking you're the one begging the question: you haven't established that either you or I enjoy some kind of privileged position in which we get to condemn other people for condemning language they don't like.

So by all means condemn them for calling things "hate speech", it's your right; but it's also their right.

Slashdot Top Deals

!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH