What's my username and password?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:42:20
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: foundation-l Digest, Vol 72, Issue 29
Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize (Tim Starling)
2. Re: Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize (Marc Riddell)
3. Re: Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize (Brian J Mingus)
4. Re: Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize (Michael Snow)
5. Re: Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize (Brian J Mingus)
6. Re: Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize (Marc Riddell)
7. Re: Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize (Michael Snow)
8. Re: Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize (Brian J Mingus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:10:25 -0800
From: Tim Starling <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:40, Brian J Mingus
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]
>>> wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8560469.stm
>>>
>>> We're the biggest non-profit website in the world. That sounds like
>>> argument for us to get the prize money to me.
>>>
>> The Internet is definitely worthy of the prize as a whole but I'm not
>> following the logic that for-profit websites are more deserving. Google,
>> for
>> example, is a major force for peace. In fact it is the biggest popularizer
>> of Wikimedia content.
>>
>>
> Yes, but Google doesn't really need the prize money.
>
> Although giving it all to Wikimedia is probably not quite right either.
Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And
they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like
unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would
choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even
more bizarre choice than last year.
-- Tim Starling
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:45:05 -0500
From: Marc Riddell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <c7be9651.1c5ef%[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> on 3/11/10 12:10 PM, Tim Starling at [email protected] wrote:
> Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would
> choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even
> more bizarre choice than last year.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
"Bizarre"? See beyond the visible, Tim.
Marc Riddell
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:45:16 -0700
From: Brian J Mingus <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <[email protected]>wrote:
> Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:40, Brian J Mingus <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]
> >>> wrote:
> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8560469.stm
> >>>
> >>> We're the biggest non-profit website in the world. That sounds like
> >>> argument for us to get the prize money to me.
> >>>
> >> The Internet is definitely worthy of the prize as a whole but I'm not
> >> following the logic that for-profit websites are more deserving. Google,
> >> for
> >> example, is a major force for peace. In fact it is the biggest
> popularizer
> >> of Wikimedia content.
> >>
> >>
> > Yes, but Google doesn't really need the prize money.
> >
> > Although giving it all to Wikimedia is probably not quite right either.
>
> Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And
> they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like
> unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
>
> Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would
> choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even
> more bizarre choice than last year.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace given
our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel
acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet a
reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable international
relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected as
POTUS, etc... Given that we must put men and women in harms way and we must
drop bombs it makes sense to do so in the most responsible way possible.
These unmanned bombers are a step in the right direction. Similarly for
anti-missile lasers. Supposing a hostile nation lobs an ICBM in our
direction if we are capable of zapping it out of the sky then we can avoid
war entirely. It means that we will not have to retaliate with a
counter-ICBM. How is that not for peace? How can you disparage these
technologies with tongue in cheek? A world without them would be utopia for
sure. We do not live in utopia.
Speaking as someone who has been funded by DARPA (I am now funded by
[[IARPA]]) and whose research cannot be used for war I can say that not
everything they do deserves to be described with insidious undertones. Much
of what DARPA invests in has no practical application within any reasonable
time frame. Furthermore I would note that the D is for Defense, and Defense
does not just mean developing new weapons. More and more defense for us
means stopping a threat in its early development so that nobody gets hurt.
Lastly I will note two reasons that the Internet should have been nominated
(not that it will necessarily win - it is against > 200 other nominees!)
- Free access to the sum of all human knowledge for those who have it.
That's 25% of the world and a recent survey showed that > 80% believe that
everyone deserves access to the Internet as a fundamental right, including >
70% of those who aren't even connected yet.
- Secondly, the Internet for Peace Manifesto (
http://www.internetforpeace.org/uploads/manifesto/manifesto_english.zip):
We have finally realized that the Internet is much more than a network of
> computers. It is an endless web of people.
>
> Men and women from every corner of the globe are connecting to one another
> thanks to the biggest social interface ever known to humanity.
>
> Digital culture has laid the foundations for a new kind of society. And
> this society is advancing dialogue, debate and consensus through
> communication.
>
> Because democracy has always flourished where there is openness,
> acceptance, discussion and participation. And contact with others has always
> been the most effective antidote against hatred and conflict.
>
> That's why the Internet is a tool for peace.
>
> That's why anyone who uses it can sow the seeds of non-violence.
>
> And that's why the next Nobel Peace Prize should go to the Net.
> A Nobel for each and every once of us.
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:03:37 -0800
From: Michael Snow <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Brian J Mingus wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And
>> they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like
>> unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
>>
>> Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would
>> choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even
>> more bizarre choice than last year.
>>
>> -- Tim Starling
>>
> I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace given
> our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel
> acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet a
> reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable international
> relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected as
> POTUS, etc...
Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get
sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the
work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money,
even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion
here. Thank you.
--Michael Snow
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:07:17 -0700
From: Brian J Mingus <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Snow <[email protected]>wrote:
> Brian J Mingus wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And
> >> they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like
> >> unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
> >>
> >> Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would
> >> choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even
> >> more bizarre choice than last year.
> >>
> >> -- Tim Starling
> >>
> > I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace given
> > our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel
> > acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet a
> > reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable
> international
> > relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected as
> > POTUS, etc...
> Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get
> sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the
> work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money,
> even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion
> here. Thank you.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
Yes, hardly anything is relevant for discussion on this list anymore. It
happens either on internal WMF mailing lists or IRL.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:18:30 -0500
From: Marc Riddell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <c7be9e26.1c5f6%[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Brian J Mingus wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling
>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And
>>> they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like
>>> unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
>>>
>>> Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would
>>> choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even
>>> more bizarre choice than last year.
>>>
>>> -- Tim Starling
>>>
>> I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace given
>> our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel
>> acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet a
>> reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable international
>> relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected as
>> POTUS, etc...
on 3/11/10 1:03 PM, Michael Snow at [email protected] wrote:
> Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get
> sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the
> work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money,
> even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion
> here. Thank you.
>
> --Michael Snow
"Sidetracked" from what? And, how does this discussion interfere with your
work, or your day, Michael?
MR
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:20:38 -0800
From: Michael Snow <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Brian J Mingus wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Snow <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Brian J Mingus wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <[email protected]
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And
>>>> they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like
>>>> unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would
>>>> choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even
>>>> more bizarre choice than last year.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tim Starling
>>>>
>>> I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace given
>>> our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel
>>> acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet a
>>> reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable
>>>
>> international
>>
>>> relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected as
>>> POTUS, etc...
>>>
>> Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get
>> sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the
>> work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money,
>> even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion
>> here. Thank you.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>>
> Yes, hardly anything is relevant for discussion on this list anymore. It
> happens either on internal WMF mailing lists or IRL.
>
It's not that those discussions wouldn't be relevant to have on this
list, and periodically people try and encourage others to move them to a
more public setting. It's that when this list continues to show a
tendency for conversation to degenerate, as it just did, then it's quite
hard to persuade people that they should want to have their discussions
here.
--Michael Snow
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:41:53 -0700
From: Brian J Mingus <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Michael Snow <[email protected]>wrote:
> Brian J Mingus wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Snow <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Brian J Mingus wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <
> [email protected]
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And
> >>>> they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like
> >>>> unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would
> >>>> choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even
> >>>> more bizarre choice than last year.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Tim Starling
> >>>>
> >>> I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace
> given
> >>> our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel
> >>> acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet
> a
> >>> reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable
> >>>
> >> international
> >>
> >>> relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected
> as
> >>> POTUS, etc...
> >>>
> >> Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get
> >> sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the
> >> work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money,
> >> even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion
> >> here. Thank you.
> >>
> >> --Michael Snow
> >>
> > Yes, hardly anything is relevant for discussion on this list anymore. It
> > happens either on internal WMF mailing lists or IRL.
> >
> It's not that those discussions wouldn't be relevant to have on this
> list, and periodically people try and encourage others to move them to a
> more public setting. It's that when this list continues to show a
> tendency for conversation to degenerate, as it just did, then it's quite
> hard to persuade people that they should want to have their discussions
> here.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
You believe that my reply to Tim is degenerate? That is offensive.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 72, Issue 29
********************************************
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
