No more lies on the Internet! The end is near!!!

9 years ago

Are you really so naive that you think gov control of information is a good thing? Have you ever in your life educated yourself in the history of statism while saying that we need more intelligent populations?

This is a frightening move. It means that they can shut down any whistle blowers - the speech of and information, even scientifically correct information, that does not support what the government wants you to know. It's draconian beyond belief - not a good thing or an educational thing. It's censorship. Plain and simple.

Read the history and repercussions of information control. It ain't pretty.

There's a lot of crap online - but that's why you need to do research. According to this bs, there will be only one allowed view of anything in the near future. This is more upsetting than anything that's been done to us so far. I sure hope it ends up in court and is overturned.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919050].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Google is not the government Sal.

[ 4 ] Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919063].message }}

HeySal 9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Google is not the government Sal.

Is it a major coporation? What part are major corporations playing in government? How likely is this technology to be transferred to forms government control?

I agree right now google isn't gov, but I also believe that no large corporation is without gov power behind it or without gov hanging out trying to figure out how to use it for their own devices.

I also fail to see how getting people to rely on one source of information control instead of learning to do effective research will make the population any smarter.
- Thanks
Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919077].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Google is not the government Sal.

I have a friend that has worked for the army, and HE might have something to say about THAT statement! I say that, because we have had that discussion!

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919083].message }}

BigFrank Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

I have a friend that has worked for the army, and HE might have something to say about THAT statement! I say that, because we have had that discussion!

Steve

Well, then - that settles that!

Cheers. - Frank
- [ 5 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919101].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

I have a friend that has worked for the army, and HE might have something to say about THAT statement! I say that, because we have had that discussion!

Steve

Well, there we go. You have a friend. He worked for the Army. He knows stuff. Ok. Google is the government. Let's just call it President Google then. lol.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919172].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, there we go. You have a friend. He worked for the Army. He knows stuff. Ok. Google is the government. Let's just call it President Google then. lol.

Basically he said the government is doing things for google that they would NOT do for the average joe! So they may not BE the government, but they are in BED together!

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919203].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Basically he said the government is doing things for google that they would NOT do for the average joe! So they may not BE the government, but they are in BED together!

Steve

That's because Google isn't the average joe...

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919218].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

That's because Google isn't the average joe...

When I said they were in BED together? Apparently their planes sometimes SLEEP TOGETHER! As much as planes sleep anyway. But WHATEVER! You're hearing it second hand from someone that last spoke to him on the subject like 7+ years ago.

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919231].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

When I said they were in BED together? Apparently their planes sometimes SLEEP TOGETHER! As much as planes sleep anyway. But WHATEVER! You're hearing it second hand from someone that last spoke to him on the subject like 7+ years ago.

Steve

What...? Of course the governent has a vested in a company which raises millions in tax, employs 1000s of people and offers such a service as they do. Not sure what your getting at here.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919235].message }}

BigFrank Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Apparently their black helicopters sometimes SLEEP TOGETHER!

At the risk of being banned, I fixed that for you.

Cheers. - Frank
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919282].message }}
- Kay King 9 years ago
  
  You can go on Ancestry.com and enter info - if a connection to your family is found, you get a little green leaf on your page and you can then investigate the lead.
  
  Maybe in a few years when someone writes a fact that is provably untrue, there will be a little red "G" show up to lead you to the correct answer?
  
  Before long, the most clicked and visited pages online would be the "red G" page.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
  ***
  Dear April: I don't want any trouble from you.
  January was long, February was iffy, March was a freaking dumpster fire.
  So sit down, be quiet, and don't touch anything.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919388].message }}
  
  tagiscom 9 years ago
  
  Gee, we are getting worked up about almost nothing.
  
  Google, just said that it might base search results on truth or what people rate as truth.
  
  This crap has been going on for years with Youtube video's; if something controversial with teeth is posted, then it is pretty much guaranteed to be at the bottom, but if it is dodgy BS, then up the top of results!
  
  Bury the truth, and allow the BS to the surface, so, fence-sitters will assume it isn't true!
  
  Although posting those video's by using non related kw, tends to get around that nonsence!
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919460].message }}
  
  Karen Blundell 9 years ago
  
  lol - this thread - much ado about nothing - I never worry about what Google does - there are always ways to circumvent them - there is always some rebel coming up with a browser ad-on to stop or get around whatever it is that Google does -
  
  chill out, folks - Google is not as powerful as they think they are.
  The Internet is always evolving -
  and we will all survive whatever changes come about.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  ---------------
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919642].message }}

Cali16

9 years ago

Just to be clear, this was a research paper, not a statement about something Google is planning to do. From the article itself:

To be really clear, this is 100 percent theoretical: It's a research paper, not a product announcement or anything equally exciting. (Google publishes hundreds of research papers a year.)

[ 5 ] Thanks

Signature

If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919225].message }}

Floyd Fisher 9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Google is not the government Sal.

No, but I also snicker at what they are proposing.

Think back to a study linking vaccines and autism that got debunked (and it's author in hot water).....do you really think Google can tell the difference between good references and bad when this one slipped through the cracks all those years ago?

I think this needs to be researched....to death.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9929281].message }}
- ThomM 9 years ago
  
  I don't trust the FCC to do it all right ... but I sure don't trust Verizon and AT&T to do it right at all.
  
  That's pretty much how I see it also.
  What worries me with the FCC is the possibility of them censoring.
  They've done it already with TV and Radio.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9929340].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

That is INCREDIBLE ********BS********!

Let's see what google would have to do!

1. Determine what a website says! This is generally easy, because of unicode, language codes, etc...

CAN GOOGLE DO IT? *******NO WAY*******! They won't even read the description of a website! So many lied, that google thought they could do it better. THEY WERE WRONG! Do believe me? Look at a lot of the results, and try to create a fancy website WITHOUT the tricks like the rather new CSS

2. Determine what the site is saying!

CAN GOOGLE DO IT? *******NO WAY*******! UNDERSTANDING is difficult in a LOT of ways! WHAT does ASP, for example, mean? You may have to work through several paragraphs to determine what it means. Let's try something FAR EASIER! Let's try something people have worked on for DECADES because there is a real USE! I am SHOCKED they even do THIS well, but you can bet she cherry picked. Let's have a girl explain/demonstrate:

"Let It Go" from Frozen according to...

BTW Give up IS a good general translation for let [it] go, but the whole idea of this song is OBLITERATED and makes no sense with that translation! The queen says "let it go" because she has decided to do anything BUT give up! She has decided to stop holding back and push the power to the limit to see what she can really do! She as much as says that at one point.

3. They have to know CONTEXT! DREAM ON!

4. They have to know EVERYTHING! DREAM ON!

BTW I knew a guy that wrote a paper on his doctoral thesis for a foolproof debugger. I told him that was IMPOSSIBLE BUT, if he could prove it to me, I would do ALL I COULD to make it a reality and give him the lion share of the profits. He was DEEPLY offended and said I didn't even read his paper. FINE, I said! LET ME READ IT! I DID, and I said, YEP, WON'T WORK! He told me it would! I said OK, suppose the program had to TRANSLATE french to english?

HE told me it COULDN'T do that! SO, I was RIGHT! Frankly, I saw NO practical application of what he had.

YOU may say, "But FRENCH TO ENGLISH has NOTHING to do with this!" Well, RIIIIIIGHT! It would have to translate the current language(In the US and UK, it is often ENGLISH) to something more workable(Well, FRENCH WAS the lingua franca at one point!

), KNOW THE TRUTH, compare the workable result with the truth, and determine a black/white veracity! The problem with the afore mentioned thesis was that the workable language was NUMBERS! The "TRUTH" was values from ANOTHER program the programmer wrote to do the SAME thing, and that is BLACK/WHITE!

MY problem with that guys thesis was that it assumed the programmer was equally adept at the two languages, and did them right,because OTHERWISE, THERE WAS NO TRUTH! And 1 ALWAYS equals 1! "let go" does NOT always mean "give up"!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919080].message }}

capriliz

9 years ago

In my particular case, I would be very concerned about the information I could find on CFS/ME. My daughter has been ill for 3 years with this crap.

Experts can not agree on what the illness/disease should be called. Is it CFS, CFS/ME, CFIDS, SEID, or just ME?

If experts cannot agree on the naming protocol because no one knows for certain how exactly the illness begins, how does google decide what page carries the most accurate information?

The CDC site is a joke regarding CFS/ME. Does google decide that the Center for Disease Control SHOULD be the most knowledgeable in our country? (They aren't).

It is a little scary to think that google is taking another step forward in controlling what information is or is not available to the average user.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919147].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by capriliz

In my particular case, I would be very concerned about the information I could find on CFS/ME. My daughter has been ill for 3 years with this crap.

Experts can not agree on what the illness/disease should be called. Is it CFS, CFS/ME, CFIDS, SEID, or just ME?

If experts cannot agree on the naming protocol because no one knows for certain how exactly the illness begins, how does google decide what page carries the most accurate information?

The CDC site is a joke regarding CFS/ME. Does google decide that the Center for Disease Control SHOULD be the most knowledgeable in our country? (They aren't).

It is a little scary to think that google is taking another step forward in controlling what information is or is not available to the average user.

The CDC may be considered the authority but ALL they are, and all they are SUPPOSED to be, is a HUB! A place where peer reviewed facts go, and that is charged with tracking events and releasing resources and the afore mentioned facts.

As for naming conventions? Can anyone recall GRIDS? GRIDS was what they USED to call AIDS, which is used almost interchangeably with HIV. BTW, if they are hispanic, don't say AIDS! NEVER mind that it was NEW and apparently first named in English. NOPE, it is SIDA! And speaking of GRIDS, I use grids all the time! I have also had and used aids. Probably HIV also! So YEAH, CONTEXT!!!!!!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919219].message }}

HeySal

9 years ago

Karen - don't forget that here in the states we just had a fight over net neutrality. Anything that mentions anyone wanting any kind of information control should raise a few shackles.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919666].message }}

Karen Blundell

9 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Karen - don't forget that here in the states we just had a fight over net neutrality. Anything that mentions anyone wanting any kind of information control should raise a few shackles.

I am aware of that, trust me- I was involved with OpenMedia.ca - signing petitions, raising awareness via my Twitter account - etc - still support their work actually.
I certainly understand your concern - but what I'm saying is there are enough people already watching Google's every move because of how they are perceived as invaders of privacy and that these people are preparing to circumvent whatever crap they try to pull -

like I said - in my opinion, Google are not as powerful as they would have us think. Have more faith in the people, Sal - remember it's the people who pay for Internet access - together we can shape the future of the Internet - we really can.

Thanks

Signature

---------------

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919688].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Karen - don't forget that here in the states we just had a fight over net neutrality. Anything that mentions anyone wanting any kind of information control should raise a few shackles.

Yes ... and you keep mentioning net neutrality as if it's a bad thing ... the big telecoms not being able to throttle it's millions of users, equal access to the Internet. Seems like it would be just the thing you would root for if you weren't getting all your info about it from a certain partisan perspective. It is the telecoms that want to control the flow of information to those that have the big bucks, leaving most in the US out in the cold. My access has been throttled by Verizon and Hughes Net, in spite of being charged for the data I access.

If you want something real to fret over, fret over this
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/0...-tpp-next-week

rather than your imaginary net neutrality grievance.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920255].message }}

Karen Blundell

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Yes ... and you keep mentioning net neutrality as if it's a bad thing ... the big telecoms not being able to throttle it's millions of users, equal access to the Internet. Seems like it would be just the thing you would root for if you weren't getting all your info about it from a certain partisan perspective. It is the telecoms that want to control the flow of information to those that have the big bucks, leaving most in the US out in the cold. My access has been throttled by Verizon and Hughes Net, in spite of being charged for the data I access.

If you want something real to fret over, fret over this
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/0...-tpp-next-week

rather than your imaginary net neutrality grievance.

yeah, here in Canada we have Bill C-51 to worry about now - I'm torn about my feelings on it still - anyhow....

Back when this net-neutrality issue started I was very much behind it - I still think it is a good thing but my only worry is that the FCC has too much power over this now - and what that will mean in the future for non-US Internet users.

However, like I posted elsewhere - prior to 1996 I was not online and I survived - if I didn't have internet now, it would be a challenge, but I would still survive.

If it gets to be more trouble than it's worth to be online - I'll do what I have wanted to do for a long time - get a cabin in the woods somewhere and go completely off-grid.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

---------------

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920709].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Karen Blundell

yeah, here in Canada we have Bill C-51 to worry about now - I'm torn about my feelings on it still - anyhow....

Back when this net-neutrality issue started I was very much behind it - I still think it is a good thing but my only worry is that the FCC has too much power over this now - and what that will mean in the future for non-US Internet users.

However, like I posted elsewhere - prior to 1996 I was not online and I survived - if I didn't have internet now, it would be a challenge, but I would still survive.

If it gets to be more trouble than it's worth to be online - I'll do what I have wanted to do for a long time - get a cabin in the woods somewhere and go completely off-grid.

I don't trust the FCC to do it all right ... but I sure don't trust Verizon and AT&T to do it right at all. Their vision is to choke (throttle) the average user to death to give the bandwidth to super premium customers. I paid Verizon for an unlimited data contract. That's what they sold me and that's what I expect. They're not very happy about it now and would love for me to "upgrade" my phone so they write a new contract. I'm too smart for that. When I want a new model phone, I buy it outright ... no subsidy and just apply it to my current account.

Hughes Net was horrible. Throttled the service to point where it wasn't usable. I canceled it after about 3 months of getting nothing and they still charged me $360 cancellation fee, even though they had a technical problem and could not deliver service for 3 months.

Net Neutrality is for the little guy. Verizon and the other telecoms will send millions to Congress now lobbying to eat away at the rules.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920907].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I don't trust the FCC to do it all right ... but I sure don't trust Verizon and AT&T to do it right at all. Their vision is to choke (throttle) the average user to death to give the bandwidth to super premium customers. I paid Verizon for an unlimited data contract. That's what they sold me and that's what I expect. They're not very happy about it now and would love for me to "upgrade" my phone so they write a new contract. I'm too smart for that. When I want a new model phone, I buy it outright ... no subsidy and just apply it to my current account.

Hughes Net was horrible. Throttled the service to point where it wasn't usable. I canceled it after about 3 months of getting nothing and they still charged me $360 cancellation fee, even though they had a technical problem and could not deliver service for 3 months.

Net Neutrality is for the little guy. Verizon and the other telecoms will send millions to Congress now lobbying to eat away at the rules.

As I recall, Verizon was sued for throttling, and lost. As for the unlimited claim? *******EVERYONE******* did that! It was ALWAYS illegal, but they did it! Remember all those people HERE claiming that the FTC created a NEW law that you couldn't promise a given income, or use fake reviews? SAME THING!

BE HAPPY you got that deal! BTW the US government does the SAME GARBAGE ALL OVER THE PLACE! As for your run in on hughes net? YOU'RE LUCKY! I told AT&T that ******NOBODY****** wants to buy phones! I told them that ******NOBODY****** wants their "service plan"! People do business with them *******ONLY******* because they wanted what AT&T **********************THEMSELVES****************** *** used to promise!

AT&T Reach Out and Touch Someone Commercial -...

So WHY should I carry their IDIOTIC hunk of junk(aka a phone) around, in THREE states, when their service didn't support the phone? The ****ONLY**** reason people used phones, and AT&T obviously knew this, is to connect with their service! The ONLY reason they connected with the service was so they could connect with others on the network. As their commercial said, in the very title of the song, they wanted to "reach out and touch someone".

They TOLD me it was my phone, which is BULL! I used it earlier, and it worked. I waited for their stupid replacement, and IT didn't work EITHER! I tried BOTH phones in another state, and they worked! So the problem was NOT the phone, and NOT my service plan, it was THEIR NETWORK! They can't even blame the local phone system, because OTHER phone companies phones worked! And I gave them about 3 months ALSO! I canceled, and paid the $250(IIRC) cancellation fee ONLY to avoid a back mark on my credit, etc.... I never did business with them again.

As for the net neutrality? PLEASE explain to me! If that plan says what you says it does, WHAT are the other 320+ pages for? I saw what is perhaps the smallest bill to ever hit congress. It was around 2008. You know how long it was? About HALF A PAGE! And IT was sponsored by over half a dozen people. ONE was even OBAMA! OBAMA wrote a letter covering his promise of this bill, with salutations, dates, signatures, margins, sales fluff, etc.... And it was TWO PAGES! So WHY was the bill like 330? And WHY are things so vague? And let's not forget the problem you and I had with throttling, and the lawsuit of verizon. YOU KNOW, the lawsuit that FORCED them to honor their commitment to us!

Do you know WHEN THAT was made illegal? HUNDREDS, PERHAPS even a THOUSAND years ago! It predates the concept of throttling and the network ITSELF! It is why the FTC was started! In simple terms, it is ILLEGAL to promise a benefit that you don't, can't, and/or don't intend to, deliver! So when they said UNLIMITED bandwidth, etc... It was a promise that they would not throttle. They have changed their ads now so, like you implied, they want us to change the contract so we can "accept" the new terms.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9921895].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

As I recall, Verizon was sued for throttling, and lost. As for the unlimited claim? *******EVERYONE******* did that! It was ALWAYS illegal, but they did it! Remember all those people HERE claiming that the FTC created a NEW law that you couldn't promise a given income, or use fake reviews? SAME THING!

No it is not the same thing. One things exists and the other is pure fiction.

Originally Posted by seasoned

As for your run in on hughes net? YOU'RE LUCKY!

Right ...lucky to get screwed out of hundreds of dollars from Screws Net.

Originally Posted by seasoned

So WHY was the bill like 330? And WHY are things so vague? And let's not forget the problem you and I had with throttling, and the lawsuit of verizon. YOU KNOW, the lawsuit that FORCED them to honor their commitment to us!

Steve

It's not a bill. It's FTC Rules.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922396].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

No it is not the same thing. One things exists and the other is pure fiction.

HUH?

Wireless Billing and Lawsuits

Verizon settles lawsuit over 'unlimited' data plans - FierceWirelessTech

As for the other thing? I guess it was news here around 2005, and a lot of people here were talking about it.

Right ...lucky to get screwed out of hundreds of dollars from Screws Net.

I lost the whole phone! While I was in a couple states, it was like a BRICK! I might as well have left it HOME! So MY experience with cell phones?

1. PAC BELL! DROPPED THEM! REASON? They LIED about service in other states, and SPECIFICALLY ROCHESTER NEW YORK! I happened to be doing work for a COMPETITOR and was across the isle from a person that obviously knew the area and industry well. He said that their supposed cell was about 400 miles too far away! Anyway, it wouldn't work, so I DROPPED IT!

2. AT&T! DROPPED THEM! REASON? They LIED about the reason why certain states suddenly stopped working. They even said that the phone I had, which was one of the most popular at the time, was the culprit. They told me I could NOT get a new phone, and so gave me another phone that was the same. Anyway, other people had the same phone with other carriers, and had no problem.

3. VERIZON! I dropped them, but it wasn't really for a specific reason.

It's not a bill. It's FTC Rules.

OK, STILL, WHAT is on the other 330 or so pages? I mean SERIOUSLY, it does NOT take much space to say charge all the same price that you charge the lowest priced customer, and give them the maximum speed available for the media, which should be all upgraded according to some standard. Oh SURE it is impossible, and would cause them to go bankrupt, but it is easy to write down, and appears to be what the ADMIN wants. HEY, I guess I wouldn't mind having short bursts of 1GBps throughput, etc... at $20/month or so.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922882].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

HUH?

Wireless Billing and Lawsuits

Verizon settles lawsuit over 'unlimited' data plans - FierceWirelessTech

Steve

Yes, I'm aware of verizon lawsuits. That's not what I was talking about. You inferred that selling unlimited bandwidth was similar to making false promises in Internet Marketing. Unlimited bandwidth is possible to deliver. Fake promises aren't. So they didn't promise me the impossible. They just don't want to offer it any longer, but are obligated to fulfill my contract for as long as I'm a customer.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922896].message }}

Karen Blundell 9 years ago

Suzanne, we have the same problems with the big telecoms here in Canada: Bell, Rogers, Shaw Cable, Cogeco Cable - and price gouged beyond belief even worse than in the US -

I switched to a company called Start Commuications who support OpenMedia.ca and were one of the companies supporting/sponsoring them in their fight for Net-Neutrality -

I now have faster download/uploads speeds and a lot more bandwidth for considerably less than what Cogeco Cable charges - unfortunately they are still Cogeco's lines that Start.ca leases so if something happens outside to the lines, it's Cogeco's contractors who are called in to do the work.

The big telecom's are getting scared though - they are losing business to many people who have dropped cable subscriptions in favor of Netflix, XMBC Android boxes, Free-to-Air, Roku, etc.

I personally don't have a cable TV subscription - in fact I don't even own a TV - I have a huge monitor that I hook up to my laptop and watch all the TV I want online - most of the TV channels have their shows available the day after they air - not so good for live sporting events - but for me and the few shows I watch - it's sufficient.

So this Net-Neutrality issue is a big thing to me - but if I had to give up the Internet - it wouldn't be the end of the world - I would adjust - I would prefer not to have to, though.
- Thanks
Signature
---------------
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922977].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Yes, I'm aware of verizon lawsuits. That's not what I was talking about. You inferred that selling unlimited bandwidth was similar to making false promises in Internet Marketing. Unlimited bandwidth is possible to deliver. Fake promises aren't. So they didn't promise me the impossible. They just don't want to offer it any longer, but are obligated to fulfill my contract for as long as I'm a customer.

Actually, it ISN'T possible to offer unlimited bandwidth. EVERY electronic circuit EVER devised or even IMAGINED has a design limit! If they give YOU 100% of the limit, NOBODY else can use it!

But the FACT is that I was NOT talking about THAT, but the PROMISE that they NEVER intended to keep! And YEAH, they will give you the full electronic ability to their point, for the time. And they will give you the full electronic ability to their first hop. This is known generally as not throttling, and giving continued service, but it is simply not providing ARTIFICIAL throttling. There will be NATURAL throttling through the spec designed for such things.

Anyway, they are doing THAT simply because the courts have demanded it. The FTC demanded it LONG before those companies even existed.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9929358].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Karen - don't forget that here in the states we just had a fight over net neutrality. Anything that mentions anyone wanting any kind of information control should raise a few shackles.

Would that be shekels or hackles? :-)

Cheers. - Frank

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920286].message }}

salegurus

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Insano

and probably the average global IQ will rise a few points..

Damn I hope that's true, just spent five minutes in the main forum and I swear i came away ... Look Squirrel.... Umm, what was I saying.....

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

― George Carlin

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919692].message }}

joshua sturgill

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Insano

Just found this... it will have some impact on the quality of posts by so called SEO content writers, there will be more research, and probably the average global IQ will rise a few points... the end is near :S

Google has developed a technology to tell whether 'facts' on the Internet are true - The Washington Post

If you like that article you should check out some of the stuff by Josh Bachynski. Here is an article that might interest you Don Sturgill, Writer and Conversion Specialist He is even making a documentary on Google and what their algorythms are doing for the business economy.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9929264].message }}

st0nec0ld

9 years ago

If ever changes would happen again, people will and would always find a way to adapt to changes.
So, it doesn't bother me.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

12BET | Live Casino Malaysia

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9929392].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by st0nec0ld

If ever changes would happen again, people will and would always find a way to adapt to changes.
So, it doesn't bother me.

OK, so if the restrictions were in place, and they threw out HTTP, which ALSO means EAS would be gone, and payment gateways, you feel you can just adapt? OK! I am not sure about how other countries were at this time, but I know where the US and the general state of the were. PLEASE show me the site you had in the 1980s. I am interested to see what it was like! ALSO, how did you handle money, etc...

For those that don't know, in the 1980s, we had.....

1. Email, used by few.
2. The Internet.
3. FTP
4. Telnet.
5. SSH
6. SSL
7. SFTP
8. Veronica
9. Archie

What we did NOT have was....

1. PERL
2. JAVA
3. JSP.
4. JAVASCRIPT.
5. HTTP
6. HTTPS
7. EAS
8. PAYMENT GATEWAYS.
9. PHP
10. GOOGLE, PAYPAL, CLICKBANK, AFFILIATE SYSTEMS, YAHOO, ETC....

YEAH, if the US shut down the internet, I have a feeling few appreciate the implications. It could shut down all the payment gateways as well.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9929540].message }}

Karen Blundell

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

YEAH, if the US shut down the internet, I have a feeling few appreciate the implications. It could shut down all the payment gateways as well.

Steve

no shit, Shylock!

you have the irritating habit of assuming you are the only one in here with any technical
know-how. That simply isn't true and many of us in fact do understand the implications - we just aren't drama queens about it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

---------------

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9930572].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Karen Blundell

no shit, Shylock!

you have the irritating habit of assuming you are the only one in here with any technical
know-how. That simply isn't true and many of us in fact do understand the implications - we just aren't drama queens about it.

WOW, that is SOME nerve. Yeah, I have never been called a drama queen before. That is a first.

BTW Many obviously DON'T have any idea! I never said ANYTHING about you as far I am aware!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9930625].message }}

Karen Blundell

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

WOW, that is SOME nerve. Yeah, I have never been called a drama queen before. That is a first.

BTW Many obviously DON'T have any idea! I never said ANYTHING about you as far I am aware!

Steve

I'm not just referring to myself here - most of the people who frequent this section of the forum are highly intelligent and understand full well the implications of an Internet shut down! You seem to forget that.

My own tolerance level these days for bullshit is low - I apologize if I have offended you but why did I call you a drama queen? Writing in caps online is the same thing as shouting - and you tend to do that a lot - pretty much every single post of yours includes words in caps - and pretty much every post of yours tends to come across as a lecture - sometimes completely off-topic - it drives a lot of us crazy but most are wise enough to ignore you - which in a way is a shame - because you're pretty smart, Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

---------------

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9930733].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Karen Blundell

I'm not just referring to myself here - most of the people who frequent this section of the forum are highly intelligent and understand full well the implications of an Internet shut down! You seem to forget that.

My own tolerance level these days for bullshit is low - I apologize if I have offended you but why did I call you a drama queen? Writing in caps online is the same thing as shouting - and you tend to do that a lot - pretty much every single post of yours includes words in caps - and pretty much every post of yours tends to come across as a lecture - sometimes completely off-topic - it drives a lot of us crazy but most are wise enough to ignore you - which in a way is a shame - because you're pretty smart, Steve

I think this board tends to sway to both sides of average. You are right. Some are smarter than average. Others are certainly not. And smarter is not necessarily talking about average IQ, but the understanding of the way the internet works. When I see a guy talking like the internet is nothing, and cutting it off is no big deal, wow! I mean I can't speak for places like the deepest regions of africa, or india, or china, but for most of western europe, and north america, etc... it probably would be a big deal. The internet has been so widely adopted for so long, that other services have withered like an arm unused for a year. It is entirely possible that some people in their teens don't even have any idea of what the phone system was like, or how bills were paid.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9931486].message }}

Karen Blundell

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

I think this board tends to sway to both sides of average. You are right. Some are smarter than average. Others are certainly not. And smarter is not necessarily talking about average IQ, but the understanding of the way the internet works. When I see a guy talking like the internet is nothing, and cutting it off is no big deal, wow! I mean I can't speak for places like the deepest regions of africa, or india, or china, but for most of western europe, and north america, etc... it probably would be a big deal. The internet has been so widely adopted for so long, that other services have withered like an arm unused for a year. It is entirely possible that some people in their teens don't even have any idea of what the phone system was like, or how bills were paid.

Steve

that is why I doubt very much that they would shut the Internet - too much big business is conducted online - it all boils down to money - doesn't it?
they might censor it though - or restrict access by geographic region which they sometimes do with US videos - etc., as a Canadian I can't view some stuff unless I have a VPN with a US IP address - so that definitely could become more the norm - which many of us would hate.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

---------------

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9931570].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Karen Blundell

that is why I doubt very much that they would shut the Internet - too much big business is conducted online - it all boils down to money - doesn't it?
they might censor it though - or restrict access by geographic region which they sometimes do with US videos - etc., as a Canadian I can't view some stuff unless I have a VPN with a US IP address - so that definitely could become more the norm - which many of us would hate.

Actually, it doesn't boil down to money. It boils down to what that person feels they can get. The US dollar is losing a LOT of value. Seriously, many people are starting to say things I am surprised they didn't say YEARS AGO! And others are amazed simply that they earlier fought for the opposite. Anyway, the world, and even the US, are RIFE with cases where money has lost value, and people have even been VERY poor, simply because OTHERS wanted to be on easy street. As for the 1929 crash? They passed rules in 1933 to greatly limit it. In 1999, they rescinded them! HECK, after 1987, they put controls on the market to make it fairer, and limit loses. THOSE have been rescinded ALSO. The list goes on and on.

As for the US IP address thing, that is likely things like youtube that prevents crtain groups from getting videos because they would adversely affect the market in a given area. So americans may be able to see canadian videos that canadians can't and vice/versa. If it makes you feel any better, they do the same thing in the US with US programs that are in a different market. They have for as long as I can remember.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9931799].message }}

Tim3

9 years ago

"No more lies on the Internet! The end is near!!!"

I don't believe you

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9931416].message }}

TLTheLiberator

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Insano

Just found this... it will have some impact on the quality of posts by so called SEO content writers, there will be more research, and probably the average global IQ will rise a few points... the end is near :S

Google has developed a technology to tell whether 'facts' on the Internet are true - The Washington Post

Interesting and If true and if put into play it could be a hoot.

How many stupid, konspiracy theories could be answered with something like...

- Are you kidding?

- Who told you that crap?

- One more time and you'll be banned from using our search results.

- Oh come on!

- You need to get a grip.

- Were you born yesterday?

- If you believe that, I have a wonderful bridge to sell you.

- Really?

- Tell me another bedtime story.

Since it would question some's cherished beliefs the folks that wallow in all sorts of outlandish clams would simply do their searching elsewhere.

Maybe those type of folks would have their own search engine.

But as the article said - its all theoretical.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9931810].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Interesting and If true and if put into play it could be a hoot.

How many stupid, konspiracy theories could be answered with something like...

- Are you kidding?

- Who told you that crap?

- One more time and you'll be banned from using our search results.

- Oh come on!

- You need to get a grip.

- Were you born yesterday?

- If you believe that, I have a wonderful bridge to sell you.

- Really?

- Tell me another bedtime story.

Since it would question some's cherished beliefs the folks that wallow in all sorts of outlandish clams would simply do their searching elsewhere.

Maybe those type of folks would have their own search engine.

But as the article said - its all theoretical.

Yeah, if only it COULD do that reliably!

I know I would enjoy it!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9932581].message }}

TLTheLiberator 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Yeah, if only it COULD do that reliably! I know I would enjoy it!

Steve

I sincerely doubt you would.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9932611].message }}
- seasoned 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator
  
  I sincerely doubt you would.
  
  NOPE! I would LOVE it!
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9933215].message }}

socialentry

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Interesting and If true and if put into play it could be a hoot.

How many stupid, konspiracy theories could be answered with something like...

- Are you kidding?

- Who told you that crap?

- One more time and you'll be banned from using our search results.

- Oh come on!

- You need to get a grip.

- Were you born yesterday?

- If you believe that, I have a wonderful bridge to sell you.

- Really?

- Tell me another bedtime story.

Since it would question some's cherished beliefs the folks that wallow in all sorts of outlandish clams would simply do their searching elsewhere.

Maybe those type of folks would have their own search engine.

But as the article said - its all theoretical.

Indeed. Konspiracy theories coming from degenerate cultures are the worse.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9933000].message }}

No more lies on the Internet! The end is near!!!

Trending Topics

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?

Clickbank low cost recurring

Boat and Jet Ski Rentals...... Door Hangers Effective?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?