ContraryGuy on April 07, 2011, 11:44:39 am
Just pointing out things darling no need to throw a hissy fit

He's right you know.  The popular myth of a decentralized internetwork of computers is really just a myth.

There are right now 13 people with the keys to the computers that control the Internet.  I could elaborate, but, given what I just said in my last post, you would be falling asleep right about now if I did.

So I will spare you the lecture.  You can not-thank me later.

ContraryGuy on April 07, 2011, 11:48:58 am
The net is already more centralised than most people care to admit.

Does it need to be, or is this mainly a government choice? Or a choice by big businesses?


It is both, by design and by later intent.  How do you control an uncontrollable object?  By making people believe that is is uncontrollable, not by actually making it so.

The government made it so because it was never imagined it would become what it is.
Business has made it so because it is more profitable that way.

Do not investigate behind the curtain if you value your illusions, your trust, your sanity or your security.

If you do, do not say you were not warned.

J Thomas on April 07, 2011, 12:39:36 pm
The net is already more centralised than most people care to admit.

Does it need to be, or is this mainly a government choice? Or a choice by big businesses?

It is both, by design and by later intent.  How do you control an uncontrollable object?  By making people believe that is is uncontrollable, not by actually making it so.

The government made it so because it was never imagined it would become what it is.
Business has made it so because it is more profitable that way.

Do not investigate behind the curtain if you value your illusions, your trust, your sanity or your security.

If you do, do not say you were not warned.

oooh! You make it sound interesting, though I already have a lot on my plate. Could you give some links to take most of the hard work out of finding out about this? Save me some wear-and-tear at small cost to yourself? If it's a lot of trouble for you then never mind, but whatever you can do easily that saves me significant work will be appreciated when I find the time to go after it.

quadibloc on April 07, 2011, 12:55:55 pm
oooh! You make it sound interesting, though I already have a lot on my plate. Could you give some links to take most of the hard work out of finding out about this? Save me some wear-and-tear at small cost to yourself? If it's a lot of trouble for you then never mind, but whatever you can do easily that saves me significant work will be appreciated when I find the time to go after it.
I suspect it's not quite as simple as that.

On the one hand, one has things like the "top-level DNS servers". The ones that tell the world that "www.google.com" is really "74.125.53.106". These are the most well-known of the "computers that control the Internet", but it would be easy enough for hackers to set up their own network of DNS servers, and for people to point their computers at those.

The real control of the Internet involves the level deeper than that. Routing tables. The stuff that associates IP addresses with MAC addresses of network interfaces. If they're tampered with, as happened recently when we saw the news about "our Internet traffic went through China for an hour":

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09/china_bgp_interweb_snafu/
(this even mentions that BGP, see below, was involved)

it's harder to get around that, because while the domain name to IP address conversion takes place on our own computers, which can be told to use different DNS servers, packets get routed by computers out there.

And there's even a level deeper than that. Suppose something on the order of World War III is going on, and we simply do not want China to have access to the U.S. Internet. Presumably, Canada will cooperate.

OK, just how many fiber optic cables are there going across the Atlantic ocean, or the Bering strait, or across the Pacific from Hawaii to the rest of the world? And how many cable or microwave links are there bringing the Internet to Mexico and parts beyond?

Not so many that isolating Canada and the United States from the rest of the world could not be accomplished.

This page tells some of the story:

http://www.theshulers.com/whitepapers/internet_whitepaper/index.html

but it doesn't talk about the routing system - the servers using BGP (Border Gateway Protocol), RIP (Routing Information Protocol), OSPF (Open Shortest Path First), PNNI (Private Network-to-Network Interface), and the Cisco routing protocol.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 01:27:39 pm by quadibloc »

ContraryGuy on April 07, 2011, 01:19:11 pm
Quote
AnCaps propose giving up government, not law.  Anarchists want laws (against stealing, kidnapping, etc.) to be applied equally to everyone, instead of having one class of people (government agents) who are above the law.

Hmm.  Given my druthers, I'd have one "law":  do no harm.

If you take some property of mine without my permission, that's literally stealing; otoh, if I don't care that you did, then I am not harmed, and I'm not going to "press charges".  Someone else might see potential for future harm:  that my lack of prosecution causes you to think you can take just anything.  That someone could take you to arbitration over it.

If they did, I hope the court would consider only you and your unique likelihood of drawing that conclusion, that you could take just anything.  You took the property for some reason that you thought good (or good enough) at the time.  Maybe you're just evil, in which case I'd opt for banishment.  Or maybe you had only run out of alternatives, in which case the community would be best helped by helping you -- not "punishing" you.

Or maybe something else entirely.

One of the things I dislike about a state is applying a law the same way to everyone, as if we were all clones [government agents excepted, as you note -- and yes, I do agree that that's offensive!]  One of the things I like about anarchy, and arbitration, is the possibility of tailor-made social correction -- which could cut both ways, not only to correct the defendant but also to correct the society.  Juries are supposed to do that, but at least in the US today, they're trained to do no more than apply extant law, without correction.

Another aspect of the "do no harm" rule is that there would not need to be a specific law for every sort of harm; if the plaintiff can demonstrate harm to the arbiter's satisfaction, the defendant can't excuse himself by noting that his action didn't break any law.

Maybe a society could set up a wiki, more or less detailing prevailing social norms & expectations.  Give newcomers a heads-up -- and give themselves a bit of a mirror.

The problem with arbitration is that arbiters need to eat and pay rent too.  So who pays the arbiter?  Are they selected at random?  Are they noted and respected in the field of the complaint needing arbitration?
Is their entire business nothing but going around arbitrating?  If so, who pays?  
Can you arbitrate against a company with monopoly economic power?  Without government, how is the arbitration enforced (against, not for, a monopoly economic power)?
Does the loser pay the arbiter in addition to any other monies?  What if the loser has no money or liquidatable assets with which to pay the arbiter?  Does the arbiter then have the right to enslave the non-paying party?

No-one has yet explained where the arbiter gets their pay from.

ContraryGuy on April 07, 2011, 01:23:23 pm
So really it's more like they're anarchists and you're diet-anarchy. Well not even that since really you support creating a power vacuum that will quickly be occupied by the wealthy.

Shhhh!  Youre not supposed to expose that!  They have no answer for that, so they get upset when you rain on their utopia.

SandySandfort on April 07, 2011, 01:33:21 pm
OK everyone get into your boxes, only one per!

Statist
Anarchist lite
Anarchist
Chaos-itist lite
Chaos-itist
something
something
Full scale barking mad?

Please mark my box either "Market Anarchist" or "Literal Anarchist" (i.e., no rulers) and put it near the exit.

ContraryGuy on April 07, 2011, 01:55:09 pm
OK everyone get into your boxes, only one per!

Statist
Anarchist lite
Anarchist
Chaos-itist lite
Chaos-itist
something
something
Full scale barking mad?

Chaos-itist.  Hail Eris!  Hail Discordia!  Hail Nurgle?

Betcha cant guess the references, and no using [search engine of choice].

macsnafu on April 07, 2011, 02:22:47 pm

Chaos-itist.  Hail Eris!  Hail Discordia!  Hail Nurgle?

Betcha cant guess the references, and no using [search engine of choice].

Um, Principia Discordia, by uh, old whats-his-name, Robert Anton Wilson, wasn't it?  Nah, can't remember--I need my reference materials to get the details straight.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

ContraryGuy on April 07, 2011, 02:46:16 pm
The net is already more centralised than most people care to admit.

Does it need to be, or is this mainly a government choice? Or a choice by big businesses?

It is both, by design and by later intent.  How do you control an uncontrollable object?  By making people believe that is is uncontrollable, not by actually making it so.

The government made it so because it was never imagined it would become what it is.
Business has made it so because it is more profitable that way.

Do not investigate behind the curtain if you value your illusions, your trust, your sanity or your security.

If you do, do not say you were not warned.

oooh! You make it sound interesting, though I already have a lot on my plate. Could you give some links to take most of the hard work out of finding out about this? Save me some wear-and-tear at small cost to yourself? If it's a lot of trouble for you then never mind, but whatever you can do easily that saves me significant work will be appreciated when I find the time to go after it.


The most accessible place to find such things is the Wired.com archive under "Magazine".

Also, try the Ars Technica archive; but you'll have to search for it theres so much.

These are not white papers, or the journals of the IEEE or IETF, they are written for the literate geek who has some background knowledge about the material.

NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 07, 2011, 03:43:58 pm
I suspect it's not quite as simple as that.

It's not.  CG's reference to 13 is that there are 13 root domain name server (DNS)  names, A-M.

Just names.

There are actually multiple, widely separate geographical machine clusters (over 200) that use one of these names.

These are the "official" root  (DNSs).

Suppose these are shut down.

There are also numerous "unofficial" root domain name servers available which can be accessed directly by IP number (both IPV4 and IPV6).  These will also resolve names to IP addresses from a requesting machine.

Suppose these are shut down too.

Well,  there are vast  numbers of partial name servers and DNS caches throughout the world; these caches could be combined (over some period of time) to create relatively large alternatives, and eventually most of the internet would be reconstituted as the new servers shared their data sets.

Much of the network could be accessed quickly, and even a relatively complete reconstitution could occur in a small number of days as partitions are merged.

The network design is far more intelligent than CG.

happycrow on April 08, 2011, 08:19:59 am
So really it's more like they're anarchists and you're diet-anarchy. Well not even that since really you support creating a power vacuum that will quickly be occupied by the wealthy.

Shhhh!  Youre not supposed to expose that!  They have no answer for that, so they get upset when you rain on their utopia.

If one is seeking utopia in the first place.  On the other hand, with which outfit are you more likely to retain personal freedoms?  Government-sponsored space travel, or working for Elon Musk?

Domination by the wealthy is inevitable.  Government is merely an extra lever of control.  Can mere custom provide equal levels of security?  Well... that would depend on the customs, right?  There are parts of Europe where nobless-oblige was taken VERY seriously by the nobles in question, but the vast majority of those places it was as b.s. as a southerner's slavery justifications.

mellyrn on April 08, 2011, 08:50:48 am
Quote
No-one has yet explained where the arbiter gets their pay from.

Schaeffer Cox's alternative system is in use now in Fairbanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlUHyFerTTc&

Cox's system calls for a jurist, a recorder and a jury, iirc.  All 14 get paid one ounce of silver per hour, except the jurist who gets two.  The jury, together with the jurist, decide who pays the court fees.   If the party doesn't have it, they work it off.  You can call that "enslavement" if you want to be inflammatory rather than participatory, though personally I don't see the difference between paying in coin and paying in kind:  the work, to earn the money to pay, happens either before the crime and the trial (as when the one who is found to owe restitution has the money to pay then & there) or afterward, and I'm hard-pressed to see how the one would be 'slavery' simply for being a posteriori.

Whether an arbiter would take that up as full-time work or not would, I suppose, depend on the community.  One where fellow citizens tended to work things out would need one less often than one where folks frequently sought outside opinion.

Are arbiters selected at random?  Again, depends on the community.  Iirc, Daniel Boone was often sought out by neighbors to play arbiter when the circuit judge wasn't expected for months.

Brugle on April 08, 2011, 10:14:55 am
No-one has yet explained where the arbiter gets their pay from.

Anarchy is not a designed system that is imposed on people from the top down.  Your statist assumptions don't apply.

Many people have described how they expect arbiters to be paid.  Several works with extensive details are online and have been referenced in this forum, and there are probably many others out there that could be found with little effort.

SandySandfort on April 08, 2011, 12:34:25 pm
Many people have described how they expect arbiters to be paid.  Several works with extensive details are online and have been referenced in this forum, and there are probably many others out there that could be found with little effort.

Plus you can come up with your own solutions. I am always amazed at the lack of creativity and ingenuity demonstrated by statists. Most are simply incapable of thinking critically, much less outside of the statist box.

 

anything