|
|
Post by chris on Mar 18, 2014 11:05:22 GMT -5
Last night on radio talk show they were commenting on BO wanting to sell the Internet to some foreign entity. They said that Barack stated it was too costly to upkeep any longer. This is alarming to me cause it means anything can happen in the hands of someone out of our country with all that information. They can decide to block, charge do what ever they wish and they then would have full control over the world. They also mentioned the fact that soon in the near future we will be not using money so that whatever you have will be of no value since you won't be able to do anything with it. Bit coins or whatever they call it. This data can be manipulated and then what. It sounds like the POTUS has sold this country down the river. I think he has been out to destroy this country from the get go.
He also has been given the right to Marshall law so if we decide to fight the governement then he can go ahead and declare Marshall War. They are already trying to disarm the American people.
So has anyone heard anything about this Internet topic. I know there have been rumours in the past about it having to be a paid service but people are trying and felt it should be free since we need the ability to share.
Was this announced recenty on the news and I missed it. Wondering if the Snowden incident and NSA spying has anything to do with it. What does the government not want us to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 18, 2014 13:01:07 GMT -5
The government would have to take over the Internet. Right now it consists of servers and transport mechanism, fiber and wire, that are mostly in private hands, I believe. More likely than the government confiscating private property will be taxes, rules and regulations designed to put the government in charge.
Of course there are very good arguments against the government becoming involved in the Internet and they range from privacy concerns to the belief that a free internet means free enterprise and is the only salvation for a nation that hopes to build a better economy.
But although the purpose of governments in the first years is to serve the people, the purpose soon becomes twisted into serving the needs of the bureaucracy that runs it. In short, government's main task becomes to preserve itself. It cannot do that unless it controls communications.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Mar 18, 2014 13:14:44 GMT -5
Well, we're not selling anything. It was announced over the weekend that we are making a plan to make a plan to give control of Icann (the non-profit corporation that controls the issuance of domain names) to the "international internet community" whatever that is. Some feel that the timing of the announcement was inspired by Snowden. If you go to Google News and search for something like "US to give up internet control" you will get a bunch of hits both pro and con. Here is an example of one: www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/technology/us-to-give-up-role-in-internet-domain-names.html?_r=0 |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 19, 2014 10:12:07 GMT -5
Thanks CB. That is what they were mainly talking about the domain names. I know the Internet was basically started by Gov (sharing of files amongst themselves) I'm not quite sure from that point who actually is in charge of the Internet as we know it today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 10:46:59 GMT -5
The person in charge of the internet is Cookie Monster!
The trouble with any government is that they want to control everything and know how to use any limits put upon them to their advantage.
Not sure if anyone ever said that but I just did.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Mar 19, 2014 12:39:23 GMT -5
Thanks CB. That is what they were mainly talking about the domain names. I know the Internet was basically started by Gov (sharing of files amongst themselves) I'm not quite sure from that point who actually is in charge of the Internet as we know it today. Actually, I like Alan's Cookie Monster theory. One of the magical things about the internet is that no one is in charge. We have trunk carriers who ship data to various hubs around the country mostly through fiber optic cables. They sell their services to your local internet service provider which then sells services to you. When you send a file it is broken into little chunks (called packets) and the individual chunks are sent on their way to their destination. The route that they take changes from moment to moment; one packet may travel through AT&T, another through Verizon and a third through Level 3 Communication. When they get to their destination they are reassembled and delivered to the recipient through another ISP. The half dozen largest trunk carriers are about equal size and there are many smaller ones. The FCC could regulate them but until now has taken the position that it seems to be working so don't mess with it. (To the best of my knowledge this is an unique occurrence in the history of government.) Other countries have different arrangements and in some their internet providers and carriers are quite tightly controlled (e.g. China, Egypt, Iran). |
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 19, 2014 22:30:48 GMT -5
Ah, packet switching networks. One of those many concepts which upon hearing of it for the first time in the late 60's my reaction was "huh?" Somebody thinks that would practically work? I had similar mistaken impressions when first encountering collision-detect and token ring, which are lower level protocols, beneath packet switching.
To break a message up into little blocks, number them for sequence and then broadcast them across a wide area network and let the network decide (the nodes) how best to get them from A to B and reassemble them into a coherent message was a slick idea. It was like taking individual words of a sentence and putting each in a stamped enveloped, all with the same destination address, but each with a unique sequence number so the receiver knew which word was first, second, third, etc. The letters could go out through different mail routes but all went to the same place and were then reassembled and the message read.
It was originally a Defense oriented project. I.e., no matter what city or hub got taken out by an H bomb, the packets would find routes around the damaged links and message would get through. It performed that task well, and when they fired up an entire network and started pumping packets around they also found they had increased the overall throughput or work performed by the network by leaps and bounds beyond what they had expected. Packet came into its own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Mar 19, 2014 22:36:43 GMT -5
WOW! I am still trying to wrap my mind around data transmission over fiber optic cable. You guys are waaayyy over MY head in your comprehension and knowledge of such things.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Mar 19, 2014 23:22:37 GMT -5
Clip,
The idea that I can type a "P" and create a message that routes to my friend Phil still seems magical to me (Sorry Dave but if I type a "D" it goes to Dennis, I need "Da" to get it to you.)
The Domain Naming System (which is what we are talking about giving up) is basically look up table which matches names to number strings. Clippers Busy Corners = xxx.xx.xxx.xx
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Mar 20, 2014 8:39:58 GMT -5
OK, that explains how my email screen puts up a list of all my contacts whose name begins with a c when I begin to enter a name in the address block that begins with a c.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 20, 2014 9:58:07 GMT -5
I like Alan's Cookie Monster Theory also.  |
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Mar 20, 2014 18:55:51 GMT -5
To be honest, predicting to whom I will send an email isn't that hard. It's a rather small data base and the subset of frequent contacts is much smaller. Just starting a new email in Outlook brings up a suggested list of 4 people and 1 group which probably covers about a third of my outgoing email.
I am a little surprised and somewhat alarmed about how much my phone has learned about me in only 2 months. I've gotten used to the notifications it presents to me each morning and that it includes things related to other stuff I've looked up. Today I wanted to look up something and didn't have a computer handy so I used Google on my phone. As soon as I typed a "g" into the search box it presented me with a list of possibilities. The top 2 were General Board on Clippers and Jokes & Games on Clippers.
Why was I surprised? I don't go to Clippers on the phone. When I do go to Clippers I use Firefox not Google's Chrome. However I've managed to leave enough of a digital footprint that my phone assumes it would be my top interest.
|
|
