At 02:47 PM 5/1/2002 -0700, grant mcdonald wrote:
>i even reminded him that IPv6 was being considered BECAUSE of a congestion
>problem.
really? I didn't know that.
The congestion is in the access paths, not the cores of the larger networks.
grant mcdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi, a friend of mine is laboring under the delusion
> that the internet (the backbone services such a UUnet)
> are suffering from a "too much supply, not enough
> demand" problem right now, and that this is what is
> hurting Telecom stocks.
> i can't s
Grant,
Your friend is pretty close. Where did you get your PhD?
Matt
- Original Message -
From: "grant mcdonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: Backbone congestion
> hi, a friend of mine is laboring under the delusion
> that
hi, a friend of mine is laboring under the delusion
that the internet (the backbone services such a UUnet)
are suffering from a "too much supply, not enough
demand" problem right now, and that this is what is
hurting Telecom stocks.
i can't seem to convince him that nothing could be
further from
On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 12:44 , Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Yes keeping the government out of the internet is a tremendous task. We
> will
> continue to have governments until we no longer need them. That's my
> view.
> My personal chief concern right now is if they begin taxing products
> bo
Hear, hear!
-Rens
At 11:21 PM 4/30/2002 -0700, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Well, I am doing my part by exercising my rights to avoid buying any of
>the stuff that does not let me copy it, and I will not buy any computer
>stuff that is unable to copy stuff.
>
>And, so I agree that if the IPR folk wan
Steve,
Thanks for the clarification; however, your answer is exactly what I am
concerned about.
> What the last sentence of the paragraph was trying to say is that if
> there is a large change in the timestamp from one packet to the next,
> but the sequence number only increments by one, the
US Jurisprudence is built upon a suspicion of strong
central governments. This is in part inherited from a
suspicion of a strong central British king. The
original colonies and states were just that,
decentralized jurisdictions that could barely sit in
the same room and write up a constitution.
John Stracke wrote:
> As John Gilmore has pointed out, we are approaching an age when
> nanotech will mean that any material object can be copied as
> easily as we can currently copy digital information.
This discussion is leaving the realm of ~modifications to RFCs. However,
there are two comm
>As I already said, "I also feel that Disney et al should have been
>investing in new assets rather than working to lockup old assets"
(That message hadn't reached me when I wrote.)
>I am/was arguing against the complete emasculation of IPR that Keith
>called for in his original message:
>
> | L
John Stracke wrote:
> If you get your copyright extended indefinitely (or put your materials
> under copy protection, which amounts to the same thing), then you are
> getting that monopoly for nothing; you are reneging on the bargain.
As I already said, "I also feel that Disney et al should hav
(Second thoughts on the same message.)
>Which of the following two options is more likely to feed starving
>children in Africa:
>
> 1) the Africans produce millions of pieces of valuable IPR
>
> 2) we take Steamboat Willie away from Disney, making it valueless
> to everybody
In the long ru
> 2) we take Steamboat Willie away from Disney, making it valueless
> to everybody
If it has value to Disney, then it has value to the public once it moves
into the public domain. For example, several universities had planned
courses and books around the early Mickey Mouse material; clear
> > you falsely assume that "millions of pieces of valuable IPR" can be
> > created out of thin air.
>
> I make no such assumptions. It would certainly help things, for example,
> if you were to donate your IPR to them. Which is better, that I donate my
> IPR for them to sell, or that you take my
Keith Moore wrote:
> you falsely assume that "millions of pieces of valuable IPR" can be
> created out of thin air.
I make no such assumptions. It would certainly help things, for example,
if you were to donate your IPR to them. Which is better, that I donate my
IPR for them to sell, or that yo
> Which of the following two options is more likely to feed starving
> children in Africa:
>
> 1) the Africans produce millions of pieces of valuable IPR
>
> 2) we take Steamboat Willie away from Disney, making it valueless
> to everybody
>
neither one is going to help starving childr
rather than revising the RFC maybe it would be good to develop some
recommendations for the principles or features of a useful framework?
I am also guessing that most of the ietf would prefer NOT to put up
with further debate on this topic. Maybe we should move over to the
Internet Societal Discu
Keith Moore wrote:
> And the downside of information capitalism is that it facilitates
> control over the many by those few who possess "crucial" pieces of
> information - the information produced by everyone else is nearly
> useless in comparison. Ironically, what you call "information
> capit
> > Let us dedicate ourselves to the worldwide abolishment of the
> > provisions in intellectual property laws - copyrights, patents, and
> > trademarks - which stifle the freedom of expression and the development
> > of a gloabl marketplace of ideas, to reinforce the upward spiral of
> > real val
Keith Moore wrote:
> Let us dedicate ourselves to the worldwide abolishment of the
> provisions in intellectual property laws - copyrights, patents, and
> trademarks - which stifle the freedom of expression and the development
> of a gloabl marketplace of ideas, to reinforce the upward spiral of
Keith you have put your finger squarely on the nub of what is wrong
with this RFC .
I recommend to you and other list members the essay of Yochai
Benkler. Grab the whole essay with the following URL. Benkler asks
that we consider what we are doing. Building the perfect shopping
mall or the
On Wed, 1 May 2002, vint cerf wrote:
> At 03:00 PM 5/1/2002 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> > For instance, it could assert that the assumed
> >state was that information was in the public domain, and resist the move to
> >assume all information innately carries enforceable restrictions a
> On Wed, 01 May 2002 15:00:53 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > a very important thing. For instance, it could assert that the assumed
> > state was that information was in the public domain, and resist the move to
> > assume all information innately carries enforceable restrictions ab initio.
At 03:00 PM 5/1/2002 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For instance, it could assert that the assumed
>state was that information was in the public domain, and resist the move to
>assume all information innately carries enforceable restrictions ab initio.
current copyright law says that from th
That would be nice!!!
James
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alexandre Dulaunoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"
> > ""
> >Internet is for everyo
On Wed, 01 May 2002 15:00:53 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> a very important thing. For instance, it could assert that the assumed
> state was that information was in the public domain, and resist the move to
> assume all information innately carries enforceable restrictions ab initio.
Unfortun
26 matches
Mail list logo
