I can really see the US/UK agreeing to any demands to remove all articles about Tiananmen Square, or removal of all criticisms of any or all religions. (/sarcasm)
What is more likely to happen is that the west will veto most if not all proposals originating in the east and the middle east, and Russia and the east will veto most if not all proposals originating in the west (excuse the culturally biased geographic descriptions), and the system will be happily paralysed, resulting in no change to the current status quo. To my mind this is infinitely preferable to a system which can be destroyed, or at least greatly harmed, by unilateral action on the part of any bully-boy nation.
I'm not sure the UN taking over the internet is the right answer, but I am absolutely sure that leaving things the way they are is the wrong one. The article gives one good reason why...
Mod the above comment up. Sometimes its important to become a dictator and face the criticism for the sake of removing bureaucracy and making progress and reforms and sometimes we need to remove the dictator and create a bureaucratic system so that views of one dont interfere with the way of living of others. In this case the choice to shutdown was justified but the way wasn't. and more often then not, its this highhanded approach that I see being followed.
Consumer Reports magazine announced its support Tuesday for so-called vehicle-to-vehicle technology, which will allow autos to communicate with each other electronically -- and potentially save thousands of lives.
Emacs is a great OS and it includes a browser too
Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.