Internet ZEEER binnenkort al volledig onder U.N. controle ?

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2005 17:33 schreef Dromenvanger het volgende:
Ik weet niet of je terug en vooruit kunt gaan op die lijn

klik hier maar eerst een paar keer op rond (neem aan dat je wel engels kan)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Time_travel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_paradox

al zou je terug in de tijd kunnen (al zou je het filmpje achteruit kunnen spoelen de chaos theorie gaat je een beetje dwars zitten want hoe kun je het 'vorige frame' naar waarheid kunnen extrapoleren (zie data comprimeren) .. en dat van elk atoom in het universum


dan nog heb je een probleem want op het moment dat jij in het verleden bent zorg je er al voor dat je een andere toekomst creerd , doordat het filmpje al anders is ... en dit is nog maar het begin van het probleem ...

vaak genoeg over geprobeerd te redeneren .. maar uhm .. laat tijdreizen de komende 1000 jaar nog maar aan hollywood over ... overigens bekendste en simpelste uitleg dat tijdreizen niet kan .. waar zijn al die mensen uit de toekomst dan

damn , ben in een WFL stemming vandaag

en het lukt me nog redelijk om begrijpbare teksten uit te spuwen die nog relatief correct zijn ook

Heb je uberhaupt gepit vandaag? Je bent al de hele dag bezig dat je gaat pitten

Maar wat je schrijft raakt wel veel kanten inderdaad.

Denk ook dat het niet verstandig is om ermee te klooien. Je kunt wel denken erover en wie weet gaat het op een gegeven moment vanzelf allemaal.

teveel moeite doen om iets te bereiken werkt ook niet altijd.

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2005 18:22 schreef Dromenvanger het volgende:
Heb je uberhaupt gepit vandaag? Je bent al de hele dag bezig dat je gaat pitten

Maar wat je schrijft raakt wel veel kanten inderdaad.

Denk ook dat het niet verstandig is om ermee te klooien. Je kunt wel denken erover en wie weet gaat het op een gegeven moment vanzelf allemaal.

teveel moeite doen om iets te bereiken werkt ook niet altijd.

ruim twee uur hoor

volgens mij staat me ook ergens iets bij dat het enorm veel energie zou kosten om een enkele atoom te verplaatsen , maar dit zal wel een gedachtenspinsel zijn
als het zo is helpt het niet mee voor het experimenteren en dat is inderdaad niet altijd een goed iets

kan het niet zo snel terugvinden
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3811785.stm

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2005 18:30 schreef coz het volgende:

[..]

ruim twee uur hoor

volgens mij staat me ook ergens iets bij dat het enorm veel energie zou kosten om een enkele atoom te verplaatsen , maar dit zal wel een gedachtenspinsel zijn
als het zo is helpt het niet mee voor het experimenteren en dat is inderdaad niet altijd een goed iets

kan het niet zo snel terugvinden
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3811785.stm

Ik heb vaker geprobeerd om een baksteen met gedachtes te verplaatsen. In principe is dat ook het verplaatsen van atomen of niet? Ik bedoel je verschuift de massa. Maar dat werkte niet. Heb hier gelezen dat je eerst het beste met een veer kunt proberen.

Heb ook vaker geprobeerd om met mijn vuist door de muur te gaan. Zodat ik door muren kon lopen

Tja, je verveelt je en gaat iets opzoeken

2 uur geslapen. Ik heb 4 uur geslapen vannacht. Te weinig maar ik hou het wel vol tot 23:00. Ik ga sowieso slapen proberen ook al gaat het niet lukken. Op bed liggen en tot rust komen is ook een soort slapen.

Zolang de gedachtes maar ff tot rust komen want full time bezig zijn met denken kan niet gezond zijn. Hoe aantrekkelijk het ook klinkt in mijn oren.

good idea , bad idea , good idea .. .nuff said

Heeft geen zin om dit Topic verder in the leiden, heeft de Topicstarter destijds reeds prima gedaan.
Maar nou las ik hier dus een recente update over de huidige stand van zaken mbt wie het Internet nou eigenlijk zou moeten leiden. Het begint er namelijk steeds meer naar uit te zien dat de U.N. deze rol wel degelijk op zal eisen. Als dat eenmaal zo ver is, houdt je hart dan maar vast. Het Internet zal dan zo drastisch veranderen, daar heeft menig Internetter geen flauw benul van. Zag trouwens dat dit Topic destijds hard gebashed is voor het feit dat het allemaal onzin zou zijn over de mogelijkheid dat de U.N. de grote Internet baas zou worden, daarom dacht ik hierbij even een update over de huidige stand van zaken...... Het komt steeds dichterbij !!


The UN's Desire to Control the Internet
by Steven J. DuBord
December 6, 2005


UN pirates sailed into Tunis this November 16-18, looking to take the helm of Internet supervision from U.S. hands.

Do you treasure the freedom to wade out into the vast sea of information that is the Internet and surf the World Wide Web? Then look out for what is coming over the horizon: a fleet of ships is bearing down on you and your little surf(key)board, and they are flying the blue Jolly Roger of the United Nations.

You will see among them such ships of state as Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, hardly paragons of liberty and human rights. All of them are waving their cutlasses in outrage that the United States is refusing (for now) to relinquish its supervisory role over the private-sector, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Even the European Union has revealed its true colors and fired a broadside of protest against supposed U.S. dominance of the Internet. The captain of this bunch is none other than the UN secretary-general himself, Kofi "oil-for-food" Annan.

Treasure That Should Stay Buried

ICANN is essentially the mapmaker for the Internet. It handles the technical operations of the root servers of the Internet, mapping the relatively easy-to-remember domain names like apple.com or whitehouse.gov to the unique numerical address assigned to that domain. Since its inception in 1998, ICANN has plotted this map with a minimum of governmental interference and for only nominal fees.

Even without the UN's meddling, ICANN is a collaborative effort of the global community. The ICANN website notes that "citizens of Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, Germany, Ghana, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States" have all served on the organization's board of directors. "ICANN's President directs an international staff, working from three continents," ensuring that "all users of the Internet can find all valid addresses" through the organization's domain name map.

Now, Captain Annan has his eye trained on this map, looking not only for control of cyberspace, but for the buried treasure of taxing access to it. To this end, he convened the first World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva from December 10-12 of 2003, and also a second such summit this November 16-18 in Tunis.

To get a good idea of what the summit in Tunis was all about, one need only pay heed to Senator Norm Coleman's (R-Minn.) preview of the Geneva summit in the November 7, 2005 Wall Street Journal: "It sounds like a Tom Clancy plot. An anonymous group of international technocrats holds secretive meetings in Geneva. Their cover story: devising a blueprint to help the developing world more fully participate in the digital revolution. Their real mission: strategizing to take over management of the Internet from the U.S. and enable the United Nations to dominate and politicize the World Wide Web. Does it sound too bizarre to be true? Regrettably, much of what emanates these days from the U.N. does." Sen. Coleman should know: his Senate investigation into the UN's oil-for-food scandal has exposed the entrenched bureaucratic corruption of the world body.

Anti-American Audacity and Duplicity

In "Make Way for the UNternet?" in our January 26, 2004 issue, this publication quoted the blunt statement of a UN official at the Geneva summit: "What we are looking at is the future management of the Internet. It's [about] what is the best way to manage what has become a natural resource for all humanity." The summit in Tunis took up where Geneva left off, holding fast to this course of audacity and duplicity.

The audacity comes in the form of declaring the Internet to be a "global resource" belonging to the world. While this "resource" is global in scope, it clearly bears the stamp "Made in the U.S.A." Its origin can be traced back to U.S. Defense Department efforts in the 1960s to build an interconnected network -- or "Internet" -- of computers that could survive a nuclear war. Although others have contributed to the Internet, the primary technology and hardware that make it possible belong to the United States. To declare that the U.S. has done such a good job of creating the Internet that it is now obligated to give it up for the sake of the world is ludicrous.

Through the technical know-how of automobile manufacturers such as Volkswagen and BMW, Germany has excelled at making automobiles. Is Germany going to turn over these companies to the United Nations because everyone in the world deserves an affordable, fuel-efficient vehicle? Nokia of Finland owns 32 percent of the global cellphone market. Is Finland going to turn Nokia over to the UN's International Telecommunication Union because 100 percent of the world's inhabitants deserve to have a cellphone? Sony Corporation of Japan has become the leader of the home game console market with its PlayStation 2, and is gearing up to release a powerful new version next year. Is Sony going to turn over this technology to UNICEF because every child in the world deserves to play games? Don't hold your breath waiting for these or any other members of the UN to put a new car, cellphone, or game console under your Christmas tree.

It is through sheer anti-American bias that the nations of the world, via the UN, want to steal control of technology that the United States has developed. What other country would have shared the immense benefits of this technology with the world while asking so little in return?

In the October 25 Deseret Morning News, Representative Chris Cannon (R-Utah) noted that the Internet's "potential contributions to economic growth in less developed countries dwarf anything the United Nations could conceivably provide." Yet "there is no other country on the face of the earth whose government would have had the restraint to permit the freedom of thought and action that has produced the present benefits and future promise of the Internet." Rep. Cannon concludes that "it is nothing short of preposterous to suggest that any aspect of management of this amazing engine of knowledge and development be turned over to bureaucrats under the sway and direction of some of the most brutal and controlling tyrants in the world whose antipathy to the free flow of information is pathological."

These brutal, pathological tyrants would have us believe that they only want to help manage the Internet because it has "become a natural resource for all humanity." They are eager to see the Internet controlled, regulated, and taxed by the UN supposedly for the good of humanity. But the UN's choice to hold the second summit in Tunisia -- of all places -- reveals the duplicity of such feigned concern.

Consider what the journalistic organization Reporters Without Borders has to say about Tunisia in their 2005 report: "The Tunisian media work in a strait-jacket. The press code stipulates heavy fines or prison sentences for the author of any overly critical article or comment." The report also notes: "Repressive laws, bureaucratic harassment, the withdrawal of state advertising, corruption, police violence, political trials and torture are all common practices that have been condemned by human rights organizations. Self-censorship has become second nature for journalists confronted by a brutal and ubiquitous apparatus of repression." Yet this is where Captain Annan had his crew digging for the root servers of the Internet.

Running under a false flag of neutrality and magnanimity, Annan tried to plunder public opinion in a November 5 Washington Post article, claiming to believe that "censoring cyberspace, compromising its technical underpinnings or submitting it to stringent governmental oversight would mean turning our backs on one of today's greatest instruments of progress. To defend the Internet is to defend freedom itself." Aye, aye, Captain! But if you mean one word of what you say about the Internet, then tell me how you can justify "defending" it with a summit in Tunisia? After all, I'm sure that China would have been happy to make Tiananmen Square available.

Reasons to Sound "Battle Stations"

At the risk of sounding like the parrot on Captain Annan's shoulder, to protect the Internet really is to protect freedom itself. It's time to sound "battle stations" in defense of the current system of private oversight under the auspices of the United States. ICANN is, in a sense, the Internet Service Provider to all other Internet Service Providers. The UN covets this role of "master" Internet Service Provider because most of its members are repressive governments who lust for this control, while the organization itself drools at the thought of limitless income. You still can't think of any other reasons to get involved in preventing the UN from pirating control of the Internet? I can.

When was the last time a chief executive officer of your Internet Service Provider was deeply involved in allowing a tyrannical dictator to swindle billions of dollars in humanitarian aid? UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is deeply implicated in the UN oil-for-food scandal, which netted Saddam Hussein as much as $10 billion in illegal revenues and lined the pockets of UN Undersecretary-General Benon Sevan, Annan's protégé, to the tune of $1 million. Can you imagine a better choice for master Internet Service Provider than Annan and his cronies? I can.

When was the last time you typed in some search terms to your favorite search engine and found that a member of your Internet Service Provider's board of directors had blocked access to all results using those words? If you were a resident of Communist China, you would find that your government had coerced even American companies such as Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google, which operate search sites in China, into blocking words like "freedom," "democracy," "human rights," and "Taiwan independence." (For further information, read "A World Wide Web of Oppression" in our August 8, 2005 issue.) How strange, then, that Communist China has not only replaced the free republic of Taiwan at the UN, it has become a permanent member of the UN's Security Council -- the board of directors, if you will. Can you imagine a better choice for master Internet Service Provider than a body that promotes such an oppressor to its board of directors? I can.

When was the last time you heard that the human resources department of your Internet Service Provider was abusing the very people they are supposed to protect? "Dilbert" cartoons notwithstanding, the best example of this is the UN's own Commission on Human Rights. China, Cuba, Sudan, and Zimbabwe sit on this commission, all of them known for violating the human rights of their own citizens. If the UN allows the fox to guard the henhouse, so to speak, it surely can't be trusted to oversee fairly the use of the Internet to promote freedom and human rights. Can you imagine a better master Internet Service Provider than an organization that allows the worst criminals to judge what constitutes a crime? I can.

When was the last time you heard that employees and security guards at your Internet Service Provider were guilty of running prostitution rings, even forcing children into sexual servitude? In recent years, UN personnel and peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Burundi, Haiti, Kosovo, and other locations have been awash in allegations of sexual misconduct. On March 13, 2005, the Washington Post noted that these "reports of sexual abuse have come from U.N. officials, internal U.N. documents, and local and international human rights organizations that have tracked the issue. Some U.N. officials and outside observers say there have been cases of abuse in almost every U.N. mission." The charges range from outright rape of women and children to coercing them into exchanging sex for food, medicine, and other relief supplies. Can you imagine a better master Internet Service Provider than one which employs pimps and sexual predators? I can.

And so, apparently, can Sen. Coleman. On October 19, Reuters reported his concern for the Internet: "Is it going to become a vehicle for global taxation of domain names? Are you going to allow folks who have demonstrated a pattern of suppression of content, are they going to be put in charge of running this thing?" Because of his investigation into the oil-for-food scandal, the gentleman from Minnesota knows that of which he speaks. When he says, "I really think you're talking about the future of the Internet here," only a fool would ignore his warning.

Thankfully, Sen. Coleman has put some bite behind his bark and sponsored Senate Resolution 273, "Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United Nations and other international organizations shall not be allowed to exercise control over the Internet." He is definitely not alone. On November 17, the House passed unanimously Rep. John Doolittle's (R-Calif.) House Concurrent Resolution 268, "Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers." These legislative measures are a good beginning, but concerned Americans also need to set their sights at a longer range.

Gradual Permission to Come Aboard

Too many officials at the highest levels of the U.S. government have an internationalist mind-set. Even though the United Nations is irredeemably corrupt, these officials remain committed to it as a fledgling world government. Many are even members of globalist organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations. For them, and for other key members of the global power elite outside as well as inside government, the UN is merely a vehicle for consolidating power and creating a world government controlled by themselves.

Because of the influence the American power elite exerts over U.S. government policy, that policy is generally steered toward a course of apparent resistance to UN demands while actually implementing its edicts slowly over time. U.S. refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty, for instance, has not stopped the federal government from implementing intrusive environmental regulations to combat the supposed threat of global warming.

Even more telling is the existence of a plan that President John F. Kennedy unveiled before the UN General Assembly in 1961. The plan was detailed in a State Department document entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. According to this plan, nations would gradually surrender their military forces to the United Nations. According to Freedom From War, "States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order." There would be no allowance for unrestricted civilian ownership of firearms. This plan of eventual subservience to the UN, originally articulated in Freedom From War, is still official U.S. policy.

Even before the plan was put into writing, the process of subordinating our military was well underway. Not since World War II have our troops been sent abroad with a proper, constitutionally mandated declaration of war from Congress. They have been sent everywhere from Korea to Iraq by imperial presidents who instead have either sought approval from the United Nations or, at the very least, paid lip-service to enforcing UN decrees.

Sadly, the same patient, gradual process of surrender, this time regarding the Internet, has already begun in Tunis. By even attending a UN summit and seeking the world's permission to retain Internet superintendence, the U.S. government is assuming an inferior status, granting validity to baseless claims, and manifesting a predilection for appeasement.

In Tunis, appeasement was the order of the day. As the Associated Press reported on November 16, the United States reached a consensus -- at a price -- with the delegates from more than 100 other countries "to leave the United States with oversight of the computers that act as the Internet's master directories." The negotiated price was an agreement to "create an open-ended international forum for raising important Internet issues." The new group will address "any issue, such as spam or cybercrime, not currently covered by ICANN." As if the group's purpose were not clear enough already, it will be called the Internet Governance Forum.

It is claimed that, for now, the forum "would have no binding authority." But with such a vague mandate to address "any issue … not currently covered by ICANN," this forum gives the UN one foot on the command deck of the Internet. If it were not so, then why did EU spokesman Martin Selmayr exult: "What we see here is a clear indication that what [the U.S.] said … is not the last word and that we are back on track towards internationalization." David Gross, "the U.S. State Department's top official on Internet policy," was for some unfathomable reason "thrilled by the last-minute deal," claiming it "preserved the unique role of the U.S."

But for how long? According to AP, "many delegates … did not believe the Americans emerged victorious," and "even traditional allies of Washington considered it to have opened the door to the possibility of more shared governance." Though Captain Kofi claimed at the summit that the UN "does not want to take over, police or otherwise control the Internet," he is expected to "open the forum's first meeting perhaps as early as next year in Athens." With this old sea dog at the helm, the Internet Governance Forum is sure to navigate the UN into a position of ever-increasing cyberspace dominance.

Making the UN Walk the Plank

For now, it is time to load your e-mail cannons and fire off a salvo in support of Senate Resolution 273 and against any form of UN control over the Internet.* Furthermore, we must remain vigilant to oppose all attempts by the Internet Governance Forum to give the UN any degree of power over cyberspace. We must also guard against any other plan that compromises with the UN in even the slightest way. The ultimate solution, of course, is to pressure your representative and senators to support U.S. withdrawal from the UN, eventually making the UN walk the plank and ship its headquarters off our soil.

Whether the question is, "Who should oversee the Internet?" or "Can I help save the Internet?" there is only one answer that will keep cyberspace freedom afloat: "ICANN."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_2712.shtml

[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Buckfush op 06-12-2005 09:33:37 ]