We Can Restore Net Neutrality!
On the one-year anniversary of the death of internet-activist Aaron Swartz, three judges in D.C. killed the internet. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the FCC's net neutrality rule, and opened the door to corporate control of the information we can access online. Net neutrality is the principal that internet providers must treat all content equally, rather than blocking or slowing down a website or application based on its subject matter, or on the amount someone is willing to pay to access it. Because of FCC changes during the Bush Administration, the judges ruled that internet providers no longer have to comply with net neutrality.
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, companies that provided phone or television service were classified as common carriers, and were required to provide everyone with equal access to these services. Internet providers were originally subject to these regulations as well, but that all changed in 2005, when Bush's FCC exempted them from common carrier status. So, yesterday the appeals court ruled that there is no way to force these internet providers to comply with these regulations.
The judges did, however, hint at one possible solution. Because this ruling centers on the fact that the FCC no longer classifies internet providers as common carriers, a simple rule change could once again subject them to these standards. No corporation should have control over the information we access, and internet content shouldn't be filtered based on who can pay the most to see or post it. We must push the FCC to reclassify internet providers as common carriers, and protect the freedom of the internet.
There is, as I understand, fierce opposition in Congress to a change in the classification of Internet providers that would reclass them as common carriers.
When FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) was first being negotiated in secret and threatening to be fast tracked in Congress in the early 2000's, somebody, I think it was Lori Wallach, somehow got a text of the agreement and put it on the Internet. That caused them to back off on it and scuttle the deal for the time.
The Internet brought down the Tunisian government and Mubarak in Egypt in 2011.
The Chinese know what they're doing, they dont want any democracy movements coming around. They keep Internet on a SHORT leash.
Not only do our elites want increased dominance of our economic life but they don't want Internet giving power to the people that it does politically.
...I had forgotten about Lori's (if indeed it was her?) leaking of that text. Maybe it's coincidence (I have AT&T) but I could swear my logging onto sites like Thom's is already slower. Interesting, the timing of this ruling with the TPP fast track debate (if there is any). As horrific as yesterday’s ruling was, the TPP will destroy what’s left of democracy in the US. One of Amy’s headlines on Dem. Now this a.m. ;
“The Obama administration is reportedly preparing to undermine strong environmental safeguards in trade talks with 11 other Pacific Rim countries. New documents released by WikiLeaks show the White House is ready to backtrack on a series of critical regulations in order to secure a deal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These include legally binding requirements for pollution limits, logging standards....”
I didn't think it was possible, without congress, for the president to strike down existing law. ..and we wonder why 12 year olds are bringing guns to school. todays kids are hard pressed to find a reason to hope and dream. I'm starting to think the 'powers that be' really are aliens. Where the hell do they think they will go when the air, food, and water are all toxic waste? Will they retreat to their biospheres with their own private armies and the means to filter out the poisons?
The solution hinted at by SCOTUS would be simple, if Congress would 'simply' do their jobs...but in today's political climate, the solution, no matter how simple, is made complicated by feigned opposition between Republican and Democratic elites. SCOTUS is hiding behind this suggested solution and the FCC's '05 changes to bring about the end of a free internet for the sake of their corporate masters. Who are we kidding, congressional elites went out on the town last night to celebrate this ruling. Change the FCC rules? Are you serious? They are laughing all the way to the bank...and beyond.
Quote Sandlewould: I'm starting to think the 'powers that be' really are aliens.
I understand that if you hold a bowl of strawberry ice-cream under their noses they will salivate...indicating, of course, that they are aliens! Everyone knows that aliens have a strong desire for strawberry ice-cream...oh, and live mice too...I've watched a few episodes of the old TV series "V". So now I'm an expert on aliens! ;-}
Quote Sandlewould:...feigned opposition between Republican and Democratic elites...Thank you very much! That's exactly what I believe is happening! Therefore we only have one of two, maybe both, choices..one of which is to vote for neither party and go Green and/or make ourselves heard in a more expressive way....loud and clear...in a way that would threaten the ruling elite's cushy lifestyle.
As much as I quote Wikipedia, my ears perked up when I heard Abby Martin of Breaking the Set on RT (Russia Today) say that she's effectively been banned (censored?) on Wikipedia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_50wRWuoT8
It is my understanding that Wikipedia, although in their early history was thought to be more liberal biased, has been strongly infiltrated by right wingers who can bully others around in the editing process. Anyone can, ostensibly, edit Wikipedia, if they register. But, some people gain predominance and can override or even ban lesser people from the web site.
Wikipedia has been used by these infiltrating powers to do things like engineer positive spins on countries like Israel...hiding their oppressive regime and it's crimes against humanity.
I remember, a number of years ago, I tried to edit Wikipedia and my edit didn't last more than a few minutes before it was re-edited.
I also seem to remember doing a search on Abby Martin on Wikipedia a couple of years ago and was able to get a fairly full biography of her...where she hailed from, her early career in art, etc...but am unable to see any of that now on Wikipedia. But, of course, you can get this info at her web site: www.abbymartin.org
She's been very outspoken on some very controversial issues and has made a lot of enemies...one of which was Rand Paul who tried to get her fired from Russia Today because she dared try to interview him.
While Wikipedia claims they are trying to cut down on paid or otherwise sockpuppeting*, I am wondering who it is that has so much money that they can pay lots of people with special programs that create multiple identities to spread disinformation and propaganda disguised as truth. I don't think it comes from the liberal crowd. They may all have their opinions but the uber wealthy have a vested interest in keeping people dumb, misinformed, and distracted. And it is well known that there are military/government connected entities that do just this sort of thing in order to propagandize the masses to be pro-jingoists in service to the ruling elite. They have established programs not only to spy on us but to manipulate what we believe.
An effective fascist state must centralize power particularly in the realm of first, mass communication as a precursor to second, control of individual communication. Little else is required to maintain permanent power. It's no coincidence that the reich-wing has controlled talk radio for decades now.
I figure most of us are aliens...at least in part...
Abby did a story a while back about military psyops being used to spam the internet w/ RWNJ propaganda...including wiki-centipedia.
Yep! I've been screaming for years about the fact that unless all activists join forces to get media back in the hands of the people, no other issue will ever be dealt with.
Aaron Swartz is a hero! And guess what...Wikipedia does have a piece on him...surprise, surprise! But then isn't that what they do to people who are no longer around to continue making a fuss? Martin Luther King. Gandhi. The ones who were thorns in the side of the power elite, when they were alive were scorned and made villains. But now that they are dead and can no longer express their views or influence any further..they are often held up as someone we should revere. Powerful people stand up and make crocodile-tear speeches about them to make people think they are with the people.
Never mind the ones like Malcom X and all those who actively, physically, rebelled against the system who most likely scared the bejesus out of the ruling elite at the time and which was most likely the real reason for eventual change.
Yes, the ruling elite keep the lambs of peace in the public's eye so that they are influenced never to violently rebel. Be peaceful like they were! The peace lovers can be controlled...it's the violent rebels who are a big problem.
The last thing they want is to hold up the real opposition, the violent rebels, as good examples...so they'll hold up the lambs as examples instead.
I think Aaron Swartz is somewhere between..he wasn't violent...merely believed that information should be free and shared. And although sharing some of that information may have dealt a blow to the oppressive ruling elite...it may not have seen the light of day and so they remain safe. They can go right along with the crowds who see him as a good person and get away with, like they do with MLK and Gandhi, seeming to revere them when they secretly scorn them. But it is still a tool to keep people from getting really nasty with the ruling elite. We way outnumber them and they know it. But they also know how to effectively keep people scared to fight back.
Quote Palindomedary: ...vote for neither party...
Yes! they did that in Seatle and now they have a democratic socialist member of their city counsel.
Sandlewould: True...we are all of such stuff as stars are made of. As to whether our evolution has been helped out in our ancient past by a more evolved intelligent lifeform...I don't know. The Raelians believe so. They are the cult with the swastica inside the Jewish star symbol (how odd) that believes, based upon the ravings of a French race car driver named Claude Vorilhon who figured out a way to capture the imaginations of thousands of people predisposed to believing in UFOs. They even have what looks like a bible with the swastica/Jewish Start imprinted on the cover. Although, I supposed it could be argued that it is a Hindu swastica and not a Nazi one.
He claimed that he had seen UFOs near a volcano and they gave him a message to give to mankind. (same kind of schtick other charlatans throughout history have used...the Mormon church founder saw an angel Maroni..or is that Macaroni?).
Claude changed his name to Rael and his group of followers are called Raelians. Anyway he was not much different from others of his ilk in including "free love"...so I guess he wasn't all that bad...unless you don't believe in free love. Most people believe in the kind that gets them into debt for their entire lives. ;-}
Anyway, the Raelians believe that humans were created by a race of extraterrestrial aliens that are watching over us. Maybe they are farming us for dinner? Don't get on that ship...that book on "How To Serve Mankind"...it's...it's... a cook book!
Sandlewould: And now, aren't they better off?
"Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of political scientists have radically different definitions for the term."--wikipedia
"Seattle has elected its first Socialist to city office in generations. Kshama Sawant’s election to the Seattle City Council made her one of a few Socialists to hold elected office in the country. Sawant is an economics teacher and former Occupy Wall Street activist who ran on a campaign to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. "The important thing about running as a Socialist is, for one, to show that there is a definite openness for clear alternatives, not only to the big business parties, but the system that they represent, the capitalist system," Sawant says. Seattle’s new mayor, Ed Murray, has announced plans to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour for all city employees."
I have no idea where we came from, although Darwin obviously made some good points...I just know I don't know all, if any...of the answers. I and 2 others with me saw a UFO once, but that's just what it was 'unidentified'. I don't presume to know where it came from or what it was. That being said, the theory of evolution is just that...a theory. My partner, an MD, geneticist and microbiologist says that it is impossible for DNA to change what it codes for spontaneously in an organized fashion, i.e. from a single-celled organism to a multi-celled one if it originates as a single celled organism. Mitosis, where the one cell from a multi-celled organism, grows into a multi-celled organism is the only observed way a single cell 'evolves' or grows into a multi-celled organism. Since Pasteur discovered the microbe, no single celled organism has ever been observed to evolve into a multi-celled organism. So, how did we get here, exactly? ...? don't know.
P--ary -- Thom said when he visited Heritage Foundation (another Kock Bros funded org), he was shown one area where every computer screen was logged onto Wikipedia. I think the building where Thom broadcasts from houses the Heritage Foundation.
When someone charges people for what could be free that isn't business that's theft and EXTORTION.
Every time I turn around, it seems, we are closer to fascism; one paper cut at a time. The anger and fear it evokes renders me speechless.
Aliens invading the Earth?!? Where did that come from and how did it get into Thom's blog?
HHmmm...come to think of it, that might explain what's going on in Washington; we're all lunchmeat.
They're not aliens but they think they are.
Did I mention Occupy Wall Street came about through Internet networking?
lol ...tongue in cheek in post # 4...
Sandlewould: The big key is time and external infuences...and changes that organisms make in order to adapt to survive.
Quote Sandlewould: "Since Pasteur discovered the microbe, no single celled organism has ever been observed to evolve into a multi-celled organism."But how many years has it been since Pasteur (1822-1895). It has been merely 118 years since Louis Pasteur. That is nothing compared to the millions of years of evolution in a world that has undergone many changes in it's biosphere.
Quote Sandlewould:"..it is impossible for DNA to change what it codes for spontaneously in an organized fashion, i.e. from a single-celled organism to a multi-celled one if it originates as a single celled organism."
The key words there are 'spontaneously' and 'organized' . Evolution of a species takes a very long time and nothing is 'spontaneous' or 'organized' about evolution of a species except for possibly the mutations from errant cell replications.
It is more on the order of chaotic mutations that occur over many thousands or millions of years and the passing on of those traits to offspring that pass them on to theirs eventually branching off to form a new species.
Apoptosis is the term they use to describe programmed cell death which is necessary to weed out genetic coding 'errors' from mutations perhaps caused by an extra burst of gamma rays from the sun, or the stress of constantly trying to evade predators, for example. When apoptosis fails to occur, and doen't correct the problem, then a permanent mutation ensues. It might be, or might not be a cancerous mutation that cause death of the host. Those that aren't mortally cancerous, thereby not killing the host, lets that host survive to possibly pass on the "defective" genes to offspring.
Quote National Science Foundation article:January 16, 2012
More than 500 million years ago, single-celled organisms on Earth's surface began forming multi-cellular clusters that ultimately became plants and animals.
Just how that happened is a question that has eluded evolutionary biologists.
Now scientists have replicated that key step in the laboratory using common Brewer's yeast, a single-celled organism.
The yeast "evolved" into multi-cellular clusters that work together cooperatively, reproduce and adapt to their environment--in essence, they became precursors to life on Earth as it is today.
The results are published in this week's issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
It's been many years since I bought and read much of a great book called Molecular Biology of THE CELL-Third Edition... too many authors to list here...but Watson* was one of them. It has really nice color drawings and diagrams. So, anyway, I am somewhat knowledgeable about how a cell replicates and the regulatory proteins involved.
A lot of people differ on what they consider 'chaos' or 'random' and what they consider 'ordered' which implies a 'creator' which gets into some pretty deep cosmological implications that is not likely to ever be resolved especially among people who still believe in myths and that the universe is only 5 or 6 thousand years old. Just can't reason with scientifically challenged people like that. And then, there are the scientifically knowledgeable few who have also been brainwashed from childhood to accept contradictory mythical creation stories that they stubbornly refuse to shake off.
Some people resort to what I like to call Ontological Onanism and circular reasoning and of course they just go in circles.
Quote wikipedia:"The evolution of multicellularity from unicellular ancestors has been replicated in the laboratory, in evolution experiments using predation as the selective pressure."
"...the evolutionary transition from unicellular to multicellular organization. The first evidence of this transition comes from fossils of prokaryotic filamentous and mat-forming Cyanobacteria-like organisms, dating back 3 to 3.5 billion years.."
* James D. Watson one of the authors of the book I mentioned..also author of The Double Helix and others and who in 1929 "co-discovered the double helix structure of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) at age 25, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962, along with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkinsmany" and many other accolades too numerous to mention here said this:
Quote James D. Watson:"The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don't have to understand anything, no physics, no biology. I wanted to understand" (The Vindicator, Dec. 2, 2003).
“Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely. Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours. . . .
[As a young man ] I came to the conclusion that the church was just a bunch of fascists that supported Franco. I stopped going on Sunday mornings and watched the birds with my father instead.”
Palin- Those James Watson quotes are PRICELESS! Thank you.
Aliceinwonderland: you're welcome!
I'm not arguing against the theory of evolution, just arguing in favor of NOT closing the door on a lot of unanswered questions. Who knows?.. There is no definitive proof, just theoretical assumption. Yes, the leap from single-cell to multi-cell has been engineered and observed in a lab, just not observed unaided. As it was put to me, one could replicate the conditions whereby DNA could mutate, and except in forms like cancer, the odds of organized mutation, even over billions of years are nearly nil...not scientific evidence I know, ...but...The problem my geneticist partner has with the theory of evolution is that it is promoted as fact, not theory and that, even if single-celled organisms had somehow mutated into multi-celled ones resulting in what we now know as "us"..'We' ..would have had to exist in the fossil record in a form much closer to what we now know of as our current incarnation going back much further than currently acknowledged and would have to date back millions of years to account for current theories of genetic evolution into advanced species. It would take millions of years for us to 'evolve' from what even the most advanced homo sapiens we know of were, vs. what we are now...put simply, not enough time has past, according to conventional science, for us to become what we have indeed, become...I know no answers, but nor do I suppose, do you...
Sandlewould: You are right, of course, all I can do is speculate based on what I have read.
Quote Sandlewould:The problem my geneticist partner has with the theory of evolution is that it is promoted as fact, not theory ...It is called the "theory of evolution", true, but I wonder if there is anything that your partner would consider a "fact".
If your partner is religious, or believes in a God or Supreme Being..no matter what they call it...would your partner consider those "facts" or just "theories"?
Those things are always promoted as "facts" in the religious realm. Your partner, "an MD, geneticist and microbiologist" certainly must know a lot about science...at least in those fields of science....very important fields indeed but I find it rather odd that someone with such knowledge puts up such a fight against what most other scientists accept as the most logical scenario...ie: that evolution has been proven sufficiently to be considered a fact.
From hypothesis to theory to fact is the normal path to accumulated knowledge... knowledge that proves to be highly reliable. When theories have continually mounting evidence over many, many years and are falsifiable with repeated evidence, or experimentation, supporting the validity of that theory...it is generally accepted as fact.
Some people, however, if they are not struggling from within over counter-veiling ideas (but maybe they are?) they can juggle them in a way where they can believe both scenarios. They can keep their professional knowledge at bay in order for their faith to survive. The unfortunate thing is that "misery loves company" and they often try to drag others into their abyss..ie: proselytize....if for no other reason than for the psychological kick they get when they convince others to accept their nonsense....it serves as a kind of reinforcement mechanism...an ego booster...and a kind of control over others.
Quote Sandlewould:Yes, the leap from single-cell to multi-cell has been engineered and observed in a lab, just not observed unaided.
A mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey. There were no mules until the horse and donkey got together. Dogs and cats and various other animals have been cross bred producing many kinds of animals that didn't exist previously. True, you can't cross breed a chicken and a snake...too much of a difference in species. But then what can happen over millions of years compared to what can happen merely in a few years is enormous. Not that cross breeding was necessarily the vehicle for the changes.
Quote mulemuseum.org:Mules were known in Egypt since before 3000 BC and for some 600 years - between 2100 BC and 1500 BC - - the Pharaohs sent expeditions into the Sinai to mine turquoise. The miners marked their route with carvings on rocks showing boats and mules (not camels!). Mules were, at that time, the preferred pack animal. Also in ancient Egypt, while the Pharaohs were carried about in fancy litters by servants, the common people often had the use of mule drawn carts. An Egyptian monument from Thebes depicts mules yoked to a chariot. Mule remains are frequent in the archaeological record, suggesting that mules had become a "mainstream" animal early on, used primarily for pulling wagons or transporting burden.
We have a plethora of plants that didn't exist thousands of years ago because of hybridization and now genetic manipulation. So a variety of differing life forms has been engineered by man. And some by accident...ie: Monsanto frankincorn pollination blowing across neighboring fields for example. With millions of years replacing mad modern day scientists those mutated fields of corn millions of years ago could have blown across fields that were growing in a different kind of soil and the result could have been yet another mutated kind of corn....evolution in progress. Sure makes more sense than...hocus pocus God said this and that happened.
And how does one explain the family in Kurdish Turkey that all have to crawl around on all fours like dogs....they were like that all their lives...born with it. They can stand up on two feet but only for a short period of time...just like many quadrupeds. Some kind of genetic mutation long ago inherited by succeeding generations?
Quote dailymail.uk:An extraordinary family who walk on all fours are being hailed as the breakthrough discovery which could shed light on the moment Man first stood upright.
Scientists believe that the five brothers and sisters found in Turkey could hold unique insights into human evolution.
She is agnostic...it's very simple...a mind, like a door only works if it can open, otherwise, one can't get out of the box...let alone think outside of it. Speaking for myself, I see the theory of evolution as the most likely one...but scientific methodology demands physical irrefutable proof...which as of yet, we do not absolutely have.
Quote sandlewould:She is agnostic...it's very simple...a mind, like a door only works if it can open, otherwise, one can't get out of the box...let alone think outside of it.
sandlewould ~ Very well put! When it comes down to the real truth we are all really agnostics. Anything else is self deception. What is occurring here is the playing out of a basic psychological need--to explain the unexplainable. We as a species do not like not knowing. Therefore we build up "explanations." From that comes legend, myth, religion, and science. All things considered different; yet, actually meant to do the same thing--explain the unexplainable.
All these "legends", "mythologies", "religions", and "sciences" provide explanations for creation; yet, none can be proven. They are all therefore equally relevant. Personally, I prefer scientific explanations simply because they are based on fact. However, scientific theories are nothing more than an extrapolated myth that fits that fact. Ancient legends, myths, and religions do exactly the same thing. They are the "theories based on known fact" of their day. Recently, I saw a documentary on TV where they went through myth and Bible stories and tried successfully to recreate so called "miracles" that occurred in legend using known scientific techniques. Every miracle examined had a scientific way to reproduce it. Of course, that doesn't prove the stories were true anymore than it proves that God is science.
I'm firmly convinced that the best approach is the one of the agnostic. It is healthy, and permits furthering the agenda of explaining the unexplainable without the mental obstacle of preconceived prejudices. I have found that with a broader knowledge and understanding of science and myth, one gets a better understanding of both. That is, not only can science help one understand the fundamentals of legend, but legend can also help one better understand science. However, it is important to keep in mind during our struggle to understand, that though our knowledge may very well improve drastically, it is not likely that we will ever be able to fully explain the unexplainable as fact.
That is a fact that we must accept in order to learn anything. It is important that the door on the box not only open; but, open both ways. Also, it is not necessarily a bad thing that we can never really know the truth about creation. Perhaps we might seriously regret having such knowledge. For instance, if we really knew it all, where would the motivation be to learn any more? That might be the reason that the universe does such a good job of concealing it's secrets in the first place.
Although this guy is highly controversial, and I don't agree, or disagree with most of what he says...what's the harm in listening? Whether fact or fiction, we don't know, but good food for thought... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZL7tcLgX8
Sandlewould: Well if she is agnostic then that sure shoots my little theory all to pieces! Although I submit that the theory of evolution has had more supporting evidence than not. The so-called missing links are, from time to time, discovered and it is all a matter of just how much evidence does one need before they are convinced that it is a fact.
There are some areas of science that I believe are not much different than religion...like the Big Bang Theory. They want us to believe that something came from nothing. It's almost dogma. But I guess nothing is perfect..not even science. But it is sure a heck of a lot better than religion in explaining most things.
Sandlewould: Thanks for that link. I watched the entire video including the color part toward the end. All jokes about Hare Krishna aside (Cremo and his co-author are both Hare Krishna...Cremo is not a scientist just an author), Cremo's position is religious based and not scientific based. While the Christian religion (at least some of them) believes that man, and the universe, was created merely 5000 to 6000 years ago...Cremo follows Hare Krisna beliefs that "modern" man has existed on the earth for many millions, perhaps billions of years. They believe that in the beginning spirit came into being which spawned the humans which were far more advanced than now and has been devolving ever since.
I read Cremo's book when it first came out sometime about 1994 or so. I don't even remember much of what he said in the book...one thing, I think, had to do with archeologists finding gigantic animals buried in millions of year old rock or peat bogs or something that we have been taught wasn't endemic to Canada...normally thought to be of African origin...I believe. And he was claiming that the scientific community was covering this all up. Anyway, I believe I wrote him off as just another kook.
Really, Cremo is not much different than the so-called Scientific Creationists.
The older I get the more my concern is not on how I was "created" but on how I will be "uncreated"...ie: devolved into worm food....and when.
"Uncreated"... "devolved into worm food"... Palin my dear, you sure don't mince words do you?!
Aliceinwonderland: I try my very best! Asses to ashes and dusk to dust. Minced...meat? I guess I really need to get out sometime.
I get a kick outa you, Palin. You are one of a kind. I bet we could have a lot of fun together; you, me, Marc and Sandlewould!
But it's just a game.....
Games and Virtual Environments (GVE)
"America’s Army is a U.S. Army produced game that is free download from its recruitment page and is acknowledged to be so good at this the army no longer needs to use it for recruitment, they use it for training. The Lebanese Hizballah has taken this concept and the same basic game design and made its own version of the game called Special Forces 2 (SF2), which its press section acknowledges is used for recruitment and training in order to prepare their youth to “fight the enemy”, a radicalizing medium; the ultimate goal is to become a suicide martyr."
"These games offer realistic weapons training (what weapon to use against what target, what ranges can be achieved, even aiming and firing), military operations and tactics, photo realistic land navigation and terrain familiarization, and leadership skills. While complete military training is best achieved in person, perfection is not always required to accomplish the mission. Some of the 9-11 pilots had never flown a real plane, they had only trained using Microsoft’s Flight Simulator."
Remember, this was derived from a TOP SECRET NSA document from 2008.
"(TS//SI)Al Qaida terrorist target selectors and GVE executables have been found associated with XboxLive, Second Life, World of Warcraft, and other GVEs in PINWALE network traffic, TAO databases, and in forensic data. Other targets include Chinese hackers, an Iranian nuclear scientist, Hizballah, and Hamas members. GCHQ has a vigorous effort to exploit GVEs and has produced exploitation modules in XboxLive! and World of Warcraft. After beta testing, they expect reporting to begin in April 2008. The FBI, CIA and the Defense Humint Service all have HUMINT operations in Second Life and other GVEs and are very interested in forming a deconfliction and tipping group that would be able to collaborate on operations.
(TS//SI)GVEs are an opportunity! We can use games for: CNE exploits, social network analysis, HUMINT targeting, ID tracking(photos, doc IDs), shaping activities, geo-location of target, and collection of comms. It has
been well documented that terrorists are OPSEC and tech saavy and are only getting more so over time."
Anybody know the outcome of the countries that have net neutrality? (Chile, Netherlands and Brazil)
I find it interesting that this decision would come down at a time when subscribers are fleeing cable TV in droves. Many are simply not watching, yet so many have found access to TV programming via the internet.
Is this court decision just another invasion into our checkbooks to promote profits at the big business, eg Comcast? Lost revenue at the ISP's can now be regained through internet charges. The game is rigged in favor of business, not we the people. (I do not mean the corporation type people)