|
#41
04-08-2010, 08:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Code:
Content, Pictures and Download links visible to registered users only. REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members. Long and short, if you live or have a business in-town your only choice for "distributed content" is Comcast. However, the contract is up for renewal this year and you can bet the City will heave Comcast over the edge. Now, if I want a T1 or better I could go to AT&T but it's simply cost prohibitive. So technically there is a choice, but how many homeowners are going to choose a T1? 
|
|
#42
04-08-2010, 09:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Code:
Content, Pictures and Download links visible to registered users only. REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.
|
|
#43
04-09-2010, 07:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Code:
Content, Pictures and Download links visible to registered users only. REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.
__________________
"If you really want to hurt your parents and you don't have nerve enough to be gay, the least you can do is go into the arts." - KV
|
|
#44
04-09-2010, 07:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Code:
Content, Pictures and Download links visible to registered users only. REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members. edit: also some/most newsgroup providers will offer a free trial, usually 2 weeks. so you can get set up, and try it all out before you have to pay a dime. Last edited by Foetus : 04-09-2010 at 07:58 AM.
|
|
#45
08-09-2010, 07:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
it's here, fuckers...
(long reads... but knowledge is the key) Code:
Content, Pictures and Download links visible to registered users only. REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members. Code:
Content, Pictures and Download links visible to registered users only. REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members. So Google and Verizon went public today with their "policy framework" -- better known as the pact to end the Internet as we know it. News of this deal broke this week, sparking a public outcry that's seen hundreds of thousands of Internet users calling on Google to live up to its "Don't Be Evil" pledge. But cut through the platitudes the two companies (Googizon, anyone?) offered on today's press call, and you'll find this deal is even worse than advertised. The proposal is one massive loophole that sets the stage for the corporate takeover of the Internet. Real Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers can't discriminate between different kinds of online content and applications. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. It's what makes sure the next Google, out there in a garage somewhere, has just as good a chance as any giant corporate behemoth to find its audience and thrive online. What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. You can read their framework for yourself here or go here to see Google twisting itself in knots about this suddenly "thorny issue." But here are the basics of what the two companies are proposing: 1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment. 2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed. 3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?) 4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-pay platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road. 5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to decide what the rules should be. If there's a silver lining in this whole fiasco it's that, last I checked anyway, it wasn't up to Google and Verizon to write the rules. That's why we have Congress and the FCC. Certainly by now we should have learned -- from AIG, Massey Energy, BP, you name it -- what happens when we let big companies regulate themselves or hope they'll do the right thing. We need the FCC -- with the backing of Congress and President Obama -- to step and do the hard work of governing. That means restoring the FCC's authority to protect Internet users and safeguarding real Net Neutrality once and for all. Such a move might not be popular on Wall Street or even in certain corners of Silicon Valley, but it's the kind of leadership the public needs right now. If you haven't yet told the FCC why we need Net Neutrality, please do it now. And these were my words to combat the Drudge/Breitbart bullshit: Code:
Content, Pictures and Download links visible to registered users only. REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members. Code:
Content, Pictures and Download links visible to registered users only. REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members. Code:
Content, Pictures and Download links visible to registered users only. REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members. August 9, 2010 Lawrence Lessig is a professor at Harvard Law School and director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics. The word from Washington is that the White House is pressuring, or more diplomatically, signaling the F.C.C. to go slow on Barack Obama's promise to protect 'network neutrality.' The depressingly familiar reason why this might be so is that the White House has finally awoken to the huge political costs that this vital economic principle would incur. The less depressing, but also familiar reason is that senior economic policy types in the White House are continuing on their deregulatory crusade, facts notwithstanding. As much as anything else, the economic success of the Internet comes from its architecture. That crusade was inexcusable when it came to the debacle on Wall Street. Even if economists hadn't learned this, history had long taught the consequences of feeding a nontransparent financial market (as derivatives were) with government funds and guarantees. Willed obliviousness may have paid souls on Wall Street well, but it was a disaster for the rest of the economy. The deregulatory crusade is a bit more forgivable when it comes to the Internet. Economics really hasn't caught up with the particular lessons that the Internet has to teach. Not so much because it doesn't have the equations, or the brilliant mathematicians. But instead because the focus has been too narrow, and incomplete. As much as anything else, the economic success of the Internet comes from its architecture. The architecture, and the competitive forces it assures, is the only interesting thing at stake in this battle over 'network neutrality.' And yet, the most senior economic advisers in the White House don't seem to know what that means. They could, if they took the time. Barbara van Schewick's extraordinary new book, "Internet Architecture and Innovation," is perhaps the best explication of this point so far for those who should be studying these hard, new policy questions. But instead, policymakers, using an economics framework set in the 1980s, convinced of its truth and too arrogant to even recognize its ignorance, will allow the owners of the "tubes" to continue to unmake the Internet ? precisely the effect of Google and Verizon's 'policy framework.' Oblivious and arrogant. Where have we seen this before?
__________________
 Last edited by Fever : 08-09-2010 at 08:21 PM.
|
|
#46
08-10-2010, 12:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
i think its time i get darknet
__________________
RIP JOE Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#47
08-10-2010, 10:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Code:
Content, Pictures and Download links visible to registered users only. REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#48
08-10-2010, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's a fun vid all you lefties will likely roast me aboot.
Glenn Beck talks Net Neutrality...
|
|
#49
08-10-2010, 07:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
^^^ scumbag didn't talk about net neutrality at all - just that the 'left' was for it, so the lemmings should run to the cliffs - no facts, no knowledge, no sense.
ever hear of this big word - Obfuscation: the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret.
__________________
|
|
#50
08-10-2010, 07:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Code:
Content, Pictures and Download links visible to registered users only. REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.
__________________
-MgH ReQuieSCaT In PaCe Breach my ringmeat weirdos.Joe TheSNaKe. Always THAT asshole 
|
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM.