Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | gdy's comments login

Russia ships Soyuz to Kuru for Arian. Apparently, it is worth the cost and there has been no failures.

-----


"Eventually Guinea turned to communist Russia with even greater consequences."

What did you mean by that? Wikipedia is prety succint on this:

"Following France's withdrawal, Guinea quickly aligned itself with the Soviet Union and adopted socialist policies. This alliance was short lived, however, as Guinea moved towards a Chinese model of socialism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea#Independence_and_Post-C...

-----


Don't like Scott Meyer's books, but this pdf has chance to be good: http://www.artima.com/shop/overview_of_the_new_cpp

-----


"Iraq, one of the biggest international disasters since the Berlin Wall fell, was caused by shitty intelligence and fear of the unknown. Saddam really dismantled his WMD program, bu the US, based on fear, assumed he was hiding it."

No, not according to what Wesley Clark, former US general who almost started WW3 in Yugoslavia, says: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyEJ6Aja-UQ

-----


It is pretty much different, see for yourself:

Viktor Bout is serving 25 year sentence in an American jail after being arrested in Thailand and extradicted to the US. The former CIA Milan station chief, who's been convicted in absentia by an Italian court, has been arrested in Panama and released next day instead of being extradited to Italy.

-----


And yet the risk of the opposite verdict is the reason why domains must be managed by the United Nations and not by an American organization.

-----


The UN is one of the most self serving and corrupt entities on the planet. They are the last organization that should be managing something this important.

ICANN needs to be managed by people who have no other professional priorities than keeping the internet running and free from corporate, governmental and political interference.

-----


Maybe I'm a bit naive, would this be something EFF could handle or perhaps FSF?

-----


I agree that this should be under the control of an international organization, but the UN is unlikely to be an impartial or intelligent arbiter.

-----


The UN is broadly as impartial and 'intelligent' as its voting members, which is kinda by design. The happy reality is that the UN is successful at most of the almost unimaginably diverse myriad of thing it's has to do. It seems to me to be a great choice for the role.

-----


> voting members

Except 5, other countries don't have a permanent say in the system. The 5 can veto any resolution. The sad reality is that UN has been successful on various issues (while still failing on very many) despite being an utterly undemocratic establishment and that is constantly being used as an excuse to continue with the current system.

-----


Five is the number of permanent members of the UN Security Concil which has nothing to do with things like managing internet.

-----


Some kind of iana.int, perhaps?

It's really an unresolved question at the moment.

-----


I agree that this should be under control of an international organization as long as this organization includes all countries and isn't a closed club of America's lapdogs.

-----


it's only as impartial and intelligent as its members are.

-----


The vast majority of UN nations are ruled by undemocratic and corrupt regimes. Why should they have any say over who runs my DNS?

-----


Yes, we should let the control of the Internet stay in the hands of the regime which has invaded dozens of countries and was first to use a computer virus (Stuxnet) as a tool of war.

-----


The UN is basically an american organization.

-----


That's essentially correct. Funny thing is, people outside the US consider the UN a Trojan horse for US hegemony; many living inside the US consider the UN a Trojan horse for destroying US sovereignty.

-----


why can't it be both?

-----


Is this what you are referring to? http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-03/ff...

-----


This and a few others. Going through the wired archives you'll find many examples of nuclear false alarms and brinkmanship where the only thing stopping annihilation is an officer ignoring or delaying the order to launch [1][2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

-----


There is a leaked Nuland-Pyatt call [1] where State Department officials discuss that their Ukrainian puppets must not compromise [2].

Next, there is a speech where Nuland brags about "investing" $5 billion dollars in Ukraine to help it "achieve its European aspirations" [3]. And here is an article [4] about part of the money going to unknown recipients or political parties and NGOs.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25896786

[3] http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm

[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/us-foreign-aid-ukra...

-----


Could you give the details of your research? Who is that senator and what proves the link?

-----


It's 11600 rubles ($320 without adjustment for purchase parity) now.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: