  |
 |
-
ref. max keiser – Get 6 mo’s free storage
-
Rick Ackerman-
- Karl Denninger – Market Ticker
- The Big Picture
- Mish
- David Morgan
- King World News
- SmartKnowledge
- GoldCore
fiat money and the french revolution
-
crash banksters – Buy Silver & gold
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/indexes/idx24_usd_en_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/platinum/t24_pt_en_usoz_2.gif)
-
- A Lightning War for Liberty
Unos
Man its good peeps are standin upto these Twerps
Hic
These protests are to be expected and aparently not enough to deter Google and Verizon to go ahead. Try to google them, do you come up empty (that would be pretty evil) ?
It is all abuse of our innate drive to communicate and conform. One crazy individual takes a hard stand, the rest being normal will follow..
One should wonder whether the internet should make money. It is mainly a conduit for marketing and propaganda, oh, and for the stealty collection of personal data.
Facebook treats personal information as the first bankers treated the gold in their safes..Nobody is supposed to exploit or loan out what is given to them to keep in confidence.
Then again there can come some good from evil parties two..Let’s see teenaged girls aspire to something other than being a total slut for a change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKhmFSV-XB0
The kind of Net Neutrality problem one sees with Google today was also the same kind of problem that existed with the US telephone and telegraph companies generations ago.
Regulation and Law eventually overcame the worst of the problems, and led to the creation of the modern internet as the top layer of the system (Internet, Telephony, Telegraphy).
Cessation of Net Neutrality will in no time lead to a domestic internet that is decrepit. The decreasing numbers of people on the internet, due to the downturn will be more and more shackled to an internet that does not work.
US internet traffic will have to become 100% outbound, like with the labor outsourcing. Yes, you will have to do all of your web work outside the US — assuming one can even get a stable SSH Telnet connection.
Forcing Americans to move 100% of their traffic outside the US to get anything done has only one benefit — 100% of the traffic can be intercepted by ECHELON … vs the 90% intercept rate of today. This is not a real change or improvement.
No non-US person would want to put their servers in the US, etc … leading to a substantial collapse of the US domestic internet sector. Considering the ongoing trend of continuos job losses, this is not a good idea either.
Networks are about interoperability, and networks that are not interoperable become extinct fairly quickly. Yes, one pays a high price for interoperability but the price is even higher without it.
I speak from the point of view of an ISP, but this is my only ISP effort to date :
http://cbc.am/pitcairn.htm (archived, has not been moved to my main website)
my web advert
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjB2YukRMHc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UP_j7InWp8
but in case Google disappears tomorrow
http://cbc.am/HireMe-geek-web-advert_SDTV.avi
These people are not professional ISPs, but they do have point that is true up to a point :
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-whats-missing-from-all-the-net-neutrality-blather-nothing-bad-is-going-to-happen-if-net-neutrality-dies-2010-8
There’s something missing from the arguments saying that the government must regulate how Internet providers run their networks — under so-called “net neutrality” principles — and that ISPs shouldn’t be allowed to sell the equivalent of Internet express lanes to whoever wants to pay for them.
What’s missing is that no one has convincingly and realistically explained what would happen that’s so bad if ISPs were NOT forced to observe net neutrality, and if they were allowed to sell faster access to the highest bidders.
The reality is that nothing really bad would happen, and that things would mostly stay the same — especially from the perspective of Internet users, the people the FCC is here to protect.
That’s because everyone involved — Internet providers, giant Internet companies, the FCC — has an interest in making sure things don’t go to hell. And they will all continue to work to make things better than they are today, for users and for their bottom lines. Without the nuisance and potential profit-blockade of government regulation. Because this is a capitalist country, after all, and Internet should be a free and open market just like any other.
Weak argument #1: But if my ISP can suddenly do whatever it wants, and sell big companies like Google priority access to its pipes, my Internet connection at home is going to suck!
No, that’s not going to happen. ISPs like Comcast and Verizon are in business to sell Internet access to as many people as possible. They would not do anything that would jeopardize their subscriber retention. If even the slightest disruption occurred, the companies would retreat. They are not in business to lose customers.
As much as it pains people to believe, ISPs actually want to provide you with the best Internet access that they can, so you remain a subscriber and keep paying them money. They don’t want to screw you over, or scare you away to their competitors.
If anything, things could get even more expensive for consumers if net neutrality is enforced. If ISPs don’t get alternative revenue opportunities, they will have even more incentive to force subscribers over to metered Internet plans, capping monthly bandwidth allotments and charging for overages, like AT&T recently did for its new wireless data subscribers.
Weak argument #2: If priority bandwidth becomes a cost for Internet companies, because rich companies like Google or Apple are happy to pay for it, it’ll totally disrupt innovation. Startups won’t be able to compete with incumbents anymore because they won’t be able to pay for bandwidth.
Doubt it.
Sure, bandwidth may cost more money than it did before, for some companies (most won’t ever need priority bandwidth). But it’s not like bandwidth is free today. And it’s not like it’s the only cost to running an Internet company. In fact, bandwidth and infrastructure costs for startups have been getting cheaper. It’s staff and rent that still cost the most for many companies. And those costs have nothing to do with net neutrality.
The vast majority of Internet businesses won’t pay for priority bandwidth, if it’s ever available. And the ones who do will figure it into their costs of doing business, the same way they do with rent, staff, health insurance, etc. If startups need to raise more money from venture capitalists, then they need to raise more money from venture capitalists. Or they can be creative, and evolve, and figure out other advantages.
Plus, it’s not like the costs will escalate to the point that they really cause any serious problems. Google and Microsoft aren’t going to let Comcast extort them any more than a startup would.
So, before we rush into getting the government to regulate our Internet access, can we all at least admit that there really isn’t anything to actually worry about if net neutrality goes away?
===========
HOWEVER
===========
There are hundreds of ways one could charge or arrange networks for those willing to pay for premium access that are reasonable and acceptable under the ITU internet standards and practices guidelines.
Do you need governmental intervention to be able to do what is to some extent a reasonable and acceptable practice? I don’t see it.
If anything this is a GATT or World Trade Org issue not a domestic telecom regulation issue.
@Max Power
The real evil is that people are usually not allowed to create alternatives. Fiber is dirt cheap, easy to implement, but connecting it to the internet backbones is probably impossible.
People are usually too demotivated to fight their own confinement, they just hope the warden doesn’t spit in their food.
@Max Power – thanks for the insight; we already have big problems doing skype interviews with American based guests; only a few who can afford the most expensive connections even have the bandwidth to handle the video; for just $35 per month I have a connection three times as fast as any of my American family or friends and it comes with free international telephone calls and more than 50 tv channels; and, of course, Asia has bandwidth and speeds two or three times faster and better than Europe; when we interviewed a guest in Bangkok in the middle of a civil war, you can see the image quality was crystal clear
And re: US just being an outbound internet, it’s, of course, Soviet like in keeping your population from getting any information from the outside world and, in terms of those able to send messages out, you will also see that much of the South and the midwest will become silent online: http://ipad.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/average-income-data-by-state.png
In a way, I kind of hope they do drop off the map; that they do get rid of net neutrality because then Europe will stop having all their traffic go through the US and the US can just fade away
google started innocent couldn’t say no to idea in getting big sold to wall street – and went evil-
by the way every time you tweet they know your location -
through twitter pics – and google geo location – so yes they can take you down if they want too. little black bag over your head and off you go to some country without torture laws…
http://www.icanstalku.com/how.php
Net Neutrality actually permits for non-US traffic to enter the US.
In essence, it is a trade issue — as it is a business communication medium.
Some nations, as in the Arab-Islamic world — do forbid traffic coming from certain places or certain nations. This is done so via the ‘socially unacceptable’ clause in world trade practices.
To what extent would the lessening of US Net Neutrality allow for non-US traffic to be given sub par forwarding priorities at routers is unclear to me.
This is where The World Trade Organization (and ‘Free Trade’ treaties) come into place — as the arbiter of reasonable and acceptable practices.
Hope weekend – they systematically point out flaws of nsa little hero conference http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10954657
In the US :
In order for an ISP (or an ISP using entity like Yahoo) to get optimal packet propagation
– globally
– and domestically
One needs to be signed up (aka have circuit contracts) with as many other ISPs entities as possible. Not all circuits need to be fat circuits, as in some cases a T1 (or E1) will work just fine.
There are extra staffing requirements for keeping track of all of the routers and network attachments, but that is what IT departments are for.
Skilled IT departments that keep an eye on traffic patterns can keep one’s www connection prices low vs traffic volumes and patterns.
There is some truth to this being true in Europe, and Canadian regulation has some analogues to European regulation — with respect to ISP type traffic.
@ Max Power
tats all fine and dandy what ya just described
What if they were to release a Bio-weapon
Robotics is Just Almost upto Speed
Stem Cell research is Just Almost upto Speed
Nano technology is Just Almost upto Speed
If Peak Oil is true there is’nt enough Oil for all of us
They dolein out Monsanto & GMO
While preservin Organic un-modified seeds @ Norway Seed Vault
All indications are towards somethin far more sinister in the Pipe Line IMO
With the underground bases and all
I dont see anythin wrong with the Internet as of now
If it aint Broke don’t meddle wit it – Murphys Law
And there age old practice is to allow a legislation which on the Cover of it seems Fine and Dandy after all none of Us can keep track of Ammendments @ later stages or upgrades in technology as wit the Full Body scanners @ a later date
Tas what happened with the The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 & Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.
the Govt. should not be in the internet business period.
Hic
@Stacy
All Asian traffic to Europe goes through the states, so we don’t know what is throttled and what is not.
The US fading away seems a good idea, the nice creative americans can rebuild it themselves and it will probably be a more prosperous place once the oligargy goes bust. You already see in Detroit. Tip: Ban banks.
Here’s a taste for sadomasochist stock market wannabees..We are going into what will feel like a pseudo recession.. http://tinyurl.com/2f26c7e
You are going to experience what will appear to be robbery. It may be you feel a psuedo-loss. But as long as your mind is not weaned of our language we will continue to get richer, and you’ll continue to become more confused. Trust has a price..
Also when Geitner was being asked by Congress where is sorry to whom have you givin the Tax payers bail out money to which Banks
…..what happened ??? he refused to tell Congress when Congress asked him “Who gave you that Authority ?” he said “you(the Congress) did.”
Thats Absurd twilight zone sh!t.
lololololoolol
ROFL
Hic
My most recent telecom work is not in web traffic, but telly :
http://hireme.geek.nz/dvb-t2w.html
The DVB terrestrial television transmission solution for Australia, Canada-Mexico and New Zealand
== Abstract ==
DVB-T2 is in process of being developed as a terrestrial transmission system for the UK. However, as a DVB standard T2 has flaws and is limited in bandwidth. DVB-T2′s maximal transmission bandwidth is 10 MHz, a mode that could not be used in Canada or anywhere where there are 6 MHz television channels.
With an effective bandwidth increase to 12 MHz, 16 MHz, 18 MHz or 24 MHz a better television transmission system can be created. The bandwidth increases must naturally be in multiples of either 6 MHz or 8 MHz. The 6 MHz or 8 MHz multiples are needed to be backwardly compatible with NTSC and PAL & SECAM bandwidth allocations.
[...]
/////////////
Similarities
////////////
A lot of traditional telephony “point to point” networks have data pipes with some structural similarities to this proposal … but only where the fibre cables have not gone.
ATSC is a crappy HDTV system that should be only permitted for Radio Astronomy / CCSDS Telecom service. DVB-T, and its Japanese and Brazilian variations — is totally robust.
If you want a DVB receiver to lose signal lock — HIT IT WITH A BRICK!
My major concern with DVB-T2 is that cars and aircraft may lost signal lock due to the decreased percentage of fixed and scattered pilots (that provide a clock signal for the PLL sync point that is not a transmitted data signal).
The DVB-T2 Error Correction system not having a RSV fallback option is also an irritant, as the RSV system is very robust. There is no support for Turbo Codes either.
Still, if signal loss is equally impossible with 8 MHz DVB-T2 at 50 mbs … than I will withdraw my concerns.
[TYPO FIXES]
My major concern with DVB-T2 is that cars and aircraft may lose “signal lock” due to the decreased percentage of Fixed and Scattered Pilots (pilots that provide a clock signal, a PLL sync point needed to hold receiver sync).
Locking on to data signals without clock signals does not work very well at all — there are hundreds of telecom research papers to prove this.
The DVB-T2 Error Correction system not having a RSV fallback option is also an irritant. The RSV system is imperfect but very robust. There is no support for Turbocodes either. Closed captioning, program guide and teletext demand Turbocodes.
Still, if signal loss is equally impossible with 8 MHz DVB-T2 at 50 mbs … as it is with normal DVB-T than I will withdraw my concerns.
@Stacy
Indeed and let’s hope it is a peaceful gracious sliding…..log-
rthymical ride.
….concerning fading away…. of course
===================
The Rat’s Nest :
Web Routers in the USA, not located in Coastal States
===================
If you did a detailed IP4 and IP6 study using Traceroute and NTP … you will find that the rat’s nest of routers (and fragmentary telecom networks in general) deep inside the US.
This US network mess leads to very poor packet propagation and much higher “hop counts” than any normal telecom person would want to tolerate. Don’t let the fancy US ISP control centres fool you, these are for the coastal and long hop ISP networks.
Although most states that border Canada or Mexico do have ISP traffic exchanges that are at least nominally state government sponsored and regulated — the interior US states often do no do this.
In the early web (1989-1994) it took 15 hops (and sometimes 31 hops) to get from Harvard Uni to MIT Uni … and the two ISP customers are a stone’s throw away from each other. This was eventually fixed, and has been at 3 hops for at least 10 years due to a microwave or fibre link.
Yet this 15 to 31 hop problem has never ended deep inside the US, leading to terrible web page propagation. If it were not for BitTorrent, the whole of the US interior would be a router ghetto, only reachable via email and FTP.
Real time messaging, IP telephony etc … demand real time responses — meaning less than 15 hops from A to B.
current policies equal “financial holocaust”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hWmCumsV9o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6wJKxbE0Ks
For the first time since the Civil War, accused pirates will be put on trial this fall in a federal courtroom.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703988304575413470900570834.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news
=========
All Asian traffic to Europe goes through the states, so we don’t know what is throttled and what is not.
=========
Asia to EEC web traffic
=========
There is no need for Asian web traffic to go via the US, but you must remember geography:
1. There is series of cables that go HK –> Ulan Bator –> Moscow but not all Asian ISPs are in love with this option. Sometimes the routes go via Canada and US to Hawaii before being put back into the Asian traffic mess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undersea_cables
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_submarine_communications_cables
2. There are alternate routes, but the geography is interesting
(HK) –> SG –> Thailand –> India –> (Pakistan) –> Aden –> Suez Canal –> Cyprus –> Greece –> Italy (possibly overland) –> France (Corsica) –> France (Mainland) –> (Chunnel to London)
These routes are heavily influenced by the old “Cable and Wireless” RED ROUTE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1891_Telegraph_Lines.jpg
– The early Red Route, formally named after 1901.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1901_Eastern_Telegraph_cables.png
– This looks like the Red Route.
Traffic within Asia and the Pacific must compete for Domestic Telecom owned cables, where a monopoly condition may exist … making traffic transfer more expensive.
Asian nations have very few traffic exchange locations vs the population that has to be served. South Korea and Japan may appear to have their acts together, but all the traffic is mostly domestic … so don’t be fooled by the high datarates available domestically.
Ah…Whats this:-
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/nationworld/2012609510_alaskaoil13.html
Oil RUNNING OUT ?????
Mike
@ Mike
Yer Gold is in a Holding pattern above 1200
So yer weekend should be Calm;-> will see what stunts tey try next week.
So what-ever tey seem to be doin seems to be failing after 2 weeks
But then as Marc Farber Suggested whenever USA’s Economy is cornered USA goes to WAR
Net neutrality is not only about traffic prioritization. It is about discrimination between uses of and devices that connect to the Internet. While an ISP has a fiscal responsibility to ensure the most efficient operation of its network, most ISPs are no longer just ISPs. They are phone companies, they are cable companies, and, in Google’s case, they are search companies. The largest phone companies have incentives to disrupt Internet calling (as Stacy pointed out) because it destroys their hundred year old business model on phone service. The largest cable companies have similar incentives for both phone and television or video services. And since they all sell hardware (just like AT&T used to allow only AT&T phones to be connected to land lines), they want to control what hardware connects as well. This has already been before the supreme court, AT&T lost. It’s just that the morons in congress call broadband something other than communication and now Verizon and Google have agreed that “OK, broadband is communication. But wireless and mobile networks are not.”
A second part of net neutrality is the large ISPs asking to be paid twice for the same bandwidth. At present, the large ISPs in major countries all use peering points. They pay for the connection to the peering point so that traffic can efficiently get to other ISPs who have done likewise because their customers want to be able to get everywhere. They typically DO NOT pay for traffic to and from the peering point, just for the connection to it. AT&T and Verizon have been saying for 3-4 years that it is not fair that Google, who already pays for Internet access, is available on their network and represents a major portion of their traffic when Google doesn’t pay AT&T or Verizon (even though AT&T and Verizon’s customers have ALREADY paid for that bandwidth and access).
I’ve seen first hand what happens when you let the major ISPs start making charges for these types of interconnects. It happened in NZ when Telstra and Telecom pulled out of the three major peering exchanges in Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington. The result is that if I go with a local ISP, I have to route my traffic via Singapore (and pay international bandwidth fees) to get 2 blocks down the road (because Telstra and Telecom represent some 80-85% of Internet connections in NZ). The notion that Telstra and Telecom were working on was that everyone would pay them for having access to their customers because they didn’t peer for free (i.e. they get paid twice, coming and going). The result is actually somewhat different and costs not only the smaller ISPs and end users money but also Telstra and Telecom (who also pay more for international bandwidth). I have heard both Telstra and Telecom use this “problem” as a reason not to consider their competitors in business/sales meetings (even though the problem is entirely of their own creation).
In these two cases, I believe that anti-discrimination is not only appropriate but the simplest way to achieve efficient operation of the marketplace. Already, very small differences give Google billions in market capitalization and the leverage to do pretty much what they want versus the guys in their garage who didn’t have quite the right cachet (there is some merit on the Internet but there is more coincidence). Allowing these large companies to make the decisions on their own (i.e. in their own interests from their current perspective) is inevitably going to lead to a landscape shift that favors their current business model, structure and practices, thus stifling innovation. And what would be so bad, well, how did more device makers with access to the land line network (which AT&T restricted) change the way in which the land line network was used after AT&T was broken up (think cheap modems and that thing called THE INTERNET).
This is all an attempt by the major phone and cable companies to come to terms with the fact that they invested rather heavily in something that was rapidly commoditized and they are trying to find other ways (e.g. antitrust violating ways) to subsidize their investment (by getting people to pay more for things they are currently not paying for). And as pointed out, this is precisely because they can’t get away with just raising rates (they’ll lose all their customers), so instead, they are trying very hard to figure out how to raise rates and costs for consumers without making it immediately obvious that this is what they are doing and without changing the marketing material that says we are still competitive. It is the opposite of transparency which I believe is necessary for consumers to make informed decisions about what service to buy where and prevents the efficient operation of the market.
But that’s just my opinion.
Max Are you saying that they intend to buy up all the homes for pennys on the $, is the same thing happening in Britan?
Mike
http://www.mikekeiser.com
Well said, Max, lifes are on the line..
@mAx,..current policies equal “financial holocaust” (DENIER)
If I was to disagree with your opinion,…would you slander me with one of your labels,… lol
You two do make me laugh,…. thanks,…
Max is explaining a world of limiting perspectives, and of course, most would agree with the emperor, when they are unable to see he’s wearing no clothes,…
TIP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDaKzQNlMFw
Sheriff threatens to arrest Fed agents if they illegally sieze cattle in Nye County
MUST WATCH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRwlVGa6YAk
PS:
The same Sheriff arrested the County DA for misappropriation of funds, but the DA refused to press charges against himself.
Daily Express: IT’S THE END FOR SAVINGS
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21854.html
”the Bank of England is NOT actually making forecasts but pumping out economic propaganda”
Marketoracle.co.uk: The Real Reason for Bank of England’s Worthless CPI Inflation Forecasts
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/193097
@Max Power my tax dollars went into build the infrastructure and developed the technology that launched the satellites into space – do you think I’m going to hand that legacy over like Congress did with pharmaceuticals?
Another problem everyone suffers from are monopolies; city and regional monopolies – Are you going to open the wires up to 20 different companies all arguing about who takes care of what?
Can you imagine the fighting over the hogging of bandwidth and all the hacking to slow each other down…
If Google and Verizon want to start digging up the streets, laying down wire and launch satellites on their own dime and rockets then we will consider renting them the land and access to our airspace.
But what is laying in road and strung across the trees now belongs to all of us.
Look at it this wise, I build a house and some hot shot comes over and decides to take over the bathroom, then charges me to use it.
You have to be out of your mind to allow that to happen.
I think the Google heads got too big and now they think they are the IMF.
@ronron and peeps from Canada
ThinkFree Presents : The Magnificent Deception
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=436798682226252164#docid=6729904244308031068
ThinkFree.ca, http://HijackingHumanity.com and DivergentFilms brings you the limited edition version of The Magnificent Deception, Rob Menard’s newest video on the concepts of Freedom, Law, and Commerce, and how they relate to Persons, Humans, and Freesouls-On-Land. Learn about the Notice of Understanding and Intent, and also the Claim of Right process. This is the preview version of the Sequel to Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception
I by mistakenly posted wit all me other Links so ya musta missed it
I knew tis some 2 years back
If tis is True Ronron ya must be werth 8 mill
lolololololol
ROFL
Hic
@podocarp – thanks for your intelligent and well-argued comment! it’s so refreshing to read a comment from the un-brainwashed, it’s been exhausting to read strings of random, incoherent trigger words posing as an argument
@Mother Earth
EVIL has a name. USA.
William Black had the other an expression that applies to ALL American society but unfortunately to all countries today: agression dynamics. It’s about a return and total regression to the robber barons coupled with fascistict and nazi government. It’s about it. I can’t see anything that a meteorite as a good solution for these arrogant sun of bitches. It’s evil indeed. Like in Nazi Germany. Everything is implementated gradually but it’s still pure evil fascism. That’s what happens wher you sleep with chineee generas and genociders. It rubs on you. That’s Google. Fuckin corporate Nazi USA corporations. They got rid of markets. Now they are getting rid of dissent and democracy. USA is indeed the Evil Empire. You always finish to become what you fight against.
I Just got this Joke in my E-mail
Looks like peeps are waken up
When society starts making Jokes about the REAL curren situation i think its a sign that peeps are awake to a certain extent
Just worried about that False Flag ops but
Heres ta Joke
Little Johnny meets Barack Obama
Barack Obama was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings.
The teacher asked the president if he would like to lead the discussion on the word ‘tragedy.’ So our illustrious president asked the class for an example of a ‘tragedy..’ One little boy stood up and offered: “If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs him over and kills him, that would be a tragedy.”
“No,” said Obama, “that would be an accident.”
A little girl raised her hand: “If a school bus carrying 50 children drove off a cliff, killing everyone, that would be a tragedy.”
“I’m afraid not,” explained Obama. “That’s what we would call great loss..”
The room went silent. No other child volunteered.. Obama searched the room. “Isn’t there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?”
Finally at the back of the room, Little Johnny raised his hand. In a quiet voice he said: “If the plane carrying you and Mrs. Obama was struck by a ‘friendly fire’ missile and blown to smithereens that would be a tragedy.”
“Fantastic!” exclaimed Obama. “That’s right. And can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?”
“Well,” says Johnny, “It has to be a tragedy, because it sure as hell wouldn’t be a great loss …… and you can bet your ass it wouldn’t be an accident either.”
Other telecommunications recommendations I have made :
http://cbc.am/Letter_PM_AU-NZ_RA-RNZI.pdf
http://cbc.am/Letter_PM_AU-NZ_RA-RNZI.ppt
Who knew that an Interlaced Rhombic antenna used in the MW band could allow for NZ or AU to broadcast to Fiji or New Caledonia or Vanuatu … and my research budget for this could not even buy a Big Mac in Wellington home of RNZI.
‘live’ solar chart and real time digital monitor http://www.solarcycle24.com/xray.htm
===========
@Max Power my tax dollars went into build the infrastructure and developed the technology that launched the satellites into space – do you think I’m going to hand that legacy over like Congress did with pharmaceuticals?
===========
I have never implicitly or explicitly agreed with the way the US regulates or has regulated telecoms.
If you can’t understand how the US telecommunication system works, something must be wrong.
Unlike with Canada, Australia or NZ — I have never been able to decipher how US runs the phone system … and US ISPs probably are just as much out to lunch and they have massive staffs and legal divisions with more people than some small Pacific Island nations.
Begging for a lessening of Net Neutrality when standard telecom practices — with no government intervention — could do the same … baffles me.
I could just be peak corruption.
My Canadian friend stranded in the US says, and his views are modest :
You must remember that 90% of the US population is ready — at any moment — to commit mass suicide [at any instant] in order to keep those that got their jobs via nepotism or favoritism in total absolute power.
The only possibility is the total avoidance of Americans in any form, even their shadows will bring total damnation.
You can determine US ISP quality and rankings via this :
http://speedtest.net/global.php
Due very often to server to server issues, the numbers may be higher than expected in many regions.
Worst I have found : Zimbabwe
Ping takes 1.3 seconds!
well In holland internet is allready also in the ban allready. Censuring the internet is thought quite normal now….
I’m with podocrap on this. Remember some years back same discussion took place in Europe. Maybe if we look at the timing of it we may see some pattern in a much grander scheme.
which is good ++
Last time I looked there were to main hubs (net) in the world, one in Denmark, one in US.
Discussing some phenomena using general terms like Net Neutrality which mean totally different thing for different groups like end-user and ISP is at best… i don’t know. It could also be part of adding new words to the 10th editions of the Dictionary
a little off topic, I hope you don’t mind :
The Atlantic’s Iran Debate . . . or Echo Chamber?
by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
As we anticipated, Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in The Atlantic, “The Point of No Return,” laying out the neoconservative case for attacking Iran, is attracting a lot of attention and comment. We are pleased that, as of this afternoon, our response to Goldberg is the top-ranked “Most Commented” piece on the Foreign Policy website and the second “Most Read” piece. But we also noticed this morning, on The Atlantic’s website, the following announcement by the magazine’s deputy editor:
This coming Monday, we’ll kick off a debate series on the issues raised in Jeff’s article, with Elliott Abrams (Council on Foreign Relations); Nicholas Burns (John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University); Patrick Clawson (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy); Reuel Marc Gerecht (Foundation for Defense of Democracies); Marc Lynch (The George Washington University); Gary Milhollin (Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control); Karim Sadjadpour (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); Robin Wright (United States Institute of Peace); Jeff himself; others here at The Atlantic — and, we hope, you.
This is a remarkable list. In order to “debate” the issues raised by Jeffrey Goldberg’s article — above all, whether Israel and/or the United States should bomb Iran — The Atlantic is assembling:
* a leading public proponent of an Israeli strike (Gerecht), who has also argued that the Green Movement could overturn the Islamic Republic;
* a non-proliferation analyst who, before America’s invasion of Iraq, publicly ridiculed the International Atomic Energy Agency for failing to find the weapons of mass destruction he insisted were there and today regularly warns about “what we now know is Iran’s determination to build the bomb” (Milhollin);
* one of the most prominent Iranian-American cheerleaders for the Green movement, whose analysis of Iranian politics over the last year and a half has regularly been at odds with reality (Sadjadpour);
* a journalist whose expectations for the Green movement — she described it in late December 2009 as Iran’s “Berlin Wall” moment — also foundered on the shoals of reality (Wright);
* the senior Iran analyst at a Washington, DC think tank founded out of AIPAC (Clawson), who is a public supporter of both regime change in and military action against Iran;
* the overseer of Middle East policy at the National Security Council during much of George W. Bush’s presidency, who holds, like Goldberg, that Arab leaders believe that “someone should bomb Iran and stop it from developing nuclear weapons” and that most Iranians would not “rally around the flag” if Iran were attacked (Abrams);
* the point man for Iran policy at the State Department during most of President George W. Bush’s second term, who forthrightly acknowledges that, during the three years he held this position, he never met an Iranian official (Burns); and
* a leading student of Arab politics, who argues against striking Iran, but on the grounds that, “for all of the flaws in President Obama’s strategy, Iran today is considerably weaker than it was when he took office” (Lynch).
We are left wondering — what, exactly, is this group of people going to debate?
This whole taking over the internet by Google, Verizon, AT&T ain’t gonna happen. They’ll just drive themselves out of business like AOL/Prodigy did. This is much ado about nothing. We have much more serious problems in the world today than this.
From another page on Business Insider: “No one has convincingly and realistically explained what would happen that’s so bad if ISPs were NOT forced to observe net neutrality.” What chutzpah. What gall. What nerve. Would we see free market forces? A level plating field? Gimme a break. Things like dossier wars, to see who can contrive the most dirt on every individual, yes.
The US strong-arms other countries to comply with its designs. The FBI goes in and pressures them, for example, “You need to immediately pass strong laws against child porn and file sharing [etc.]. You need to enact these laws NOW.” Even once the US pressure is gone, countries zealously defend whatever policies the US has had them put in place, because, “This is the way we’ve always done things”.
The desire to empower the FCC in the US with full authority over the Internet, by extension means authority over the global Internet. The FCC’s track record shows that they will eventually sell out to Big Business.
The game is to find out the pressure points that the people of the world can use to demand continuation of real Net neutrality (irrespective of “branding”) without simultaneously also handing over the power to take it away.
tracking your every click, mosquitoes on the web
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26151.htm
what you say to that stacy and max?
the people are not ready for what’s coming … just ask us; we data mine.
.google.
?it is not a hoax.
.google.
it. should not be.
unless of course it’s what your given.
just so that it’s clear
it is what your given
not allowed to be
what you find.
step into it.
feed it back to HAL
it is what we find
not what we are given.
watch/look out for my love
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8NavxD5fpw