[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 72, Issue 29

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Thu Mar 11 22:35:56 UTC 2010 

Hoi,
I am sure your password is "secret".
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 11 March 2010 23:34, <r.davey13 at googlemail.com> wrote:

> What's my username and password?
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:42:20
> To: <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: foundation-l Digest, Vol 72, Issue 29
>
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
>        foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> 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
>        foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> 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 <tstarling at wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <hnb862$ho6$1 at dough.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:40, Brian J Mingus <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com
> >>> 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 <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <C7BE9651.1C5EF%michaeldavid86 at comcast.net<C7BE9651.1C5EF%25michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> > on 3/11/10 12:10 PM, Tim Starling at tstarling at wikimedia.org 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 <Brian.Mingus at Colorado.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <9839a05c1003110945w28665a14hc542ef2c03e60d07 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org
> >wrote:
>
> > Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:40, Brian J Mingus <
> Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <
> thomas.dalton at gmail.com
> > >>> 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 <wikipedia at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4B993079.6010303 at verizon.net>
> 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 <tstarling at wikimedia.org
> >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 <Brian.Mingus at Colorado.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <9839a05c1003111007o5c636565l464f147d61e018da at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net
> >wrote:
>
> > Brian J Mingus wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <
> tstarling at wikimedia.org
> > >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 <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <C7BE9E26.1C5F6%michaeldavid86 at comcast.net<C7BE9E26.1C5F6%25michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
> > Brian J Mingus wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling
> >> <tstarling at wikimedia.org>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 wikipedia at verizon.net 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 <wikipedia at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4B993476.5020908 at verizon.net>
> 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 <wikipedia at verizon.net
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Brian J Mingus wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <
> tstarling at wikimedia.org
> >>> 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 <Brian.Mingus at Colorado.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <9839a05c1003111041t41a95d49r235f6f6a97195997 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net
> >wrote:
>
> > Brian J Mingus wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> Brian J Mingus wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <
> > tstarling at wikimedia.org
> > >>> 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
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 72, Issue 29
> ********************************************
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

More information about the foundation-l mailing list