ixminis Posted June 4, 2006 Author Share Posted June 4, 2006 Ohh, Ohhh! Tin Foil Hat time!-NTM Someone actually did a study about different shaped tinfoil hats & proved it concentrated the radio waves (oh so slightly) vs. protecting against them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storminator Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Ohh, Ohhh! Tin Foil Hat time! -NTM Someone actually did a study about different shaped tinfoil hats & proved it concentrated the radio waves (oh so slightly) vs. protecting against them Yes. Never wear a tinfoil hat. Wearing tinfoil hats to protect yourself is a government conspiracy, since it's easier to use their mind control devices on you... Don't believe me? PS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwyksilver Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Yes. Never wear a tinfoil hat. Wearing tinfoil hats to protect yourself is a government conspiracy, since it's easier to use their mind control devices on you... Don't believe me? PS You've just been waiting for someone to post something about tinfoil hats so you could link that...haven't you Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixminis Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 That's what I was talking about!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star Drifter Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Net Neutrality is a big topic among people whose jobs take place online right now. Legislations are being proposed right now, more than ever, that are calling such neutrality into question. My take? I pay to get online. Google pays to have its servers online. Both myself and Google are paying more money for faster connections to this network already. Now. A clever mass-spammer has tools. Say, three hundred blogger sites, and a four kilobyte email message. That four kilobyte message can be sent individually to each of a thousand recipients for roughly four megabytes. It might take forty megabytes to set up a horrific number of spam blogs. One person watching the right clips on Google Video can use that much bandwidth easily. This isn't about spam. It's about content delivery. Youtube, Newgrouds, Google Video, and sites of that nature are entertaining us with high quantities of data. Even though we broadband users pay a lot more for the speed, and even though the fast lines coming out of these servers costs a lot of money, some companies don't feel they're making enough. The history of tax breaks that these same companies got in the 1990s in order to make this current Internet a reality were already supposed to pay for broadband media delivery. If some of these legislations go through, they'll have filled their pockets with corporate welfare, higher rates to consumers, and higher rates against these web sites. It really is a bad deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vejlin Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 This particuar mail and others like it may be a scam, but the corperations ARE working on changing the nature of the net. Priority datagrams is one of the last hurdles, and the internet will have completed its transformation from "hippie happy" and "let's all share" to just another aspect of our lives controlled by corporations need for a fatter profit margin. Ohh, Ohhh! Tin Foil Hat time! *puts one on* The moon landings were faked! 9/11 was controlled demolition! The Flu vaccine and Muzak are mind control! *Takes it off* Ow, that hurt my brain. -NTM What are you talking about? It's not a conspiracy, noone is trying to hide the fact that data formats are being changed to accomodate prioritized datagrams among other things. You might think it's good/bad/doesn't matter, but it IS real. As I said this has been going on for a very long time, noone is trying to hide it, ISP's are doing this to make more money for their share holders. Nothing conspiratory or weird there. I'm just saying that A: the changes are real, and B I prefered the way it was before. The RFC for IPv6 is available all over the internet, go read it. Also read the RFC for IPv4, which is the previous version. RFCs are rather technical and heavy to read so I'll instead refer you to IPv6 IPv6 is the new format (actually it's not really that new but it takes a long time to change a protocol that's in use), as you can see there's 8 bits put aside for "trafic class", which is the priority value. How is what I'm saying even remotely "tin foil hat"-territory? I don't get it. P.S. Here's a link for IPv4 (the old format): IPv4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokingwreckage Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 It's a battle between two schools. School 1: we all share and we all gain from this sharing school 2: we all keep everything to ourselves unless there's profit to be made, thus maximizing our own profits and minimizing the competitiors profit. I'm with school 1 here. (big surprise) I think it's more complicated than that, to the extent that VOIP and other technologies are making it harder to justify investment in copper wire type infrastructure, and in Australia at least, that investment is desperately, desperately needed. But yes, school 2 is out there, and believe it or not, people who add no productive value but skim money are the enemy of free marketeers too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vejlin Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Yes they are enemies of the free market. Sadly the free market does not dominate the ISP-business, the freeloaders do. The internet is moving away from its "wild west"/anarchy days. The playing rules are being decided right now, and I strongly feel that anyone who cares even remotely about how these rules are to be defined, should participate in the debate. I'm not saying that I want the anarchy days back, because I don't, but I'm definitely in the "internet for everyone"-camp. So rules are needed, I just don't like the set of rules being produced right now. Sadly for me my side seems to be losing. Prioritized datagrams, the chinese google variant and the way ISPs peer (or rather don't peer) I'm affraid are here to stay. I'd be overjoyed if the free market forces kicked out the old lazy bastards controlling the tiered ISP system now, and enforced a system where there was actualy competition (resulting in better quality for the consumers). The current ISP system is not even close to being "free market", it's a system that seems custom built to maximize the number of middle men. It gets the job done of getting my packets to the right spot, but it is so unbelieveably inefficient. Yes they are enemies of the free market. Sadly the free market does not dominate the ISP-business, the freeloaders do. The internet is moving away from its "wild west"/anarchy days. The playing rules are being decided right now, and I strongly feel that anyone who cares even remotely about how these rules are to be defined, should participate in the debate. I'm not saying that I want the anarchy days back, because I don't, but I'm definitely in the "internet for everyone"-camp. So rules are needed, I just don't like the set of rules being produced right now. Sadly for me my side seems to be losing. Prioritized datagrams, the chinese google variant and the way ISPs peer (or rather don't peer) I'm affraid are here to stay. I'd be overjoyed if the free market forces kicked out the old lazy bastards controlling the tiered ISP system now, and enforced a system where there was actualy competition (resulting in better quality for the consumers). The current ISP system is not even close to being "free market", it's a system that seems custom built to maximize the number of middle men. It gets the job done of getting my packets to the right spot, but it is so unbelieveably inefficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.