Keep in mind that greed is at work here. Comcast, Verizon want a piece of the cake(s). Voice over IP (Skype), streaming video (YouTube, Google, etc), streaming data (Google Earth, Google Maps, etc) is exploding and they have to treat the (competitors') data frames on an equal basis with their own solutions: digital TV, VOIP, internet data service, etc. (Verizon is expected to dedicate 80% of their bandwith to their digital TV product once they go live)Ubermensch said:
I guess it doesn't really matter to them that in US consumers pay through the nose for internet connectivity already. What a racket!
U
Ubermensch
Guest
That's quite an assumption. My alias on digg, shoutwire, reddit, etc., is not Ubermensch. But thank you for jumping to conclusions.
U
Ubermensch
Guest
Hopefully, alternative internet sources will pop up... Hopefully. Maybe international satellite? Maybe other ISPs that use their lines, but require a much higher premium? I will definitely pay more every month to keep using the internet the way it is today; it's worth every cent to me. I will eat ramen noodles everyday so that I can continue to learn the truth. Damn you world government!!domivr said:
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
Hmmm, interesting. Actually, Ubermensch, that is not 'quite an assumption". Using information you provided, Salleles went to the forums you mentioned to look up what you might have posted. Finding a user name almost identical to yours, he concluded they were your posts. On further inspection, another user name on that forum exactly matched your user name here, but there were zero posts attributed to it. Therefore, one again is directed to the first username that is almost identical to yours, in order to see your posts.
As you can see, it is not 'quite and assumption' at all. Now that you say that was not your user name, could you tell us what it was?
As you can see, it is not 'quite and assumption' at all. Now that you say that was not your user name, could you tell us what it was?
It already is.Ubermensch said:
The Deep Web is a vast store of searchable databases that are publicly accessible, but for technical reasons not indexed by major search engines. Google or Lycos can tell you what the page might be about, but cannot access the content.
When I was shown how to access the Deep Web, it was explained to me as follows: searching the internet is a bit like dragging a net across the surface of the ocean. A great deal may be caught in it, but there are still whole trenchloads of information lurking deep on the ocean floor.
The intelligence community has used BrightPlanet's DQM (deep query manager) for years to identify, retrieve, classify and organise both deep and surface content. Its information store is perhaps around five hundred times larger than that of the world wide web. 500 billion individual documents compared to the one billion on the surface web. There are more than two hundred thousand deep web sites. Sixty of the largest contain more than forty times the information of the entire surface web.
Even search engines with the largest number of web pages indexed, such as Google, each index is no more than sixteen per cent of the surface web. Most internet searchers are therefore only scanning one of the three thousand pages available.
Unfortunately, these deep query managers are costly and are not intended for personal use. However, there are programs that do trawl the deep web. One is LexiBot, which can access 2,200 search engines, subject guides, databases and other Internet sources. It runs on all versions of Windows. The LexiBot website no longer exists, but you can download a free educational version of LexiBot here. It gives you two 107-day trial periods. Or you can try version 2.5, a trial version, here.
More info on deep web search engines can be found at http://www.pcnet-online.com/content/communications/200107.htm for anyone who is interested.
A
Anders
Guest
I looked at Reddit and Shoutwire but found no reference to SOTT either as Ubermench claimed he posted elsewhere. Maybe My search was not thorough enough, but again it would be something for Ubermench to help with by backing up his assertions byanart said:
1 providing links to the mentioned sites with his username on those sites so as it can be verified that he is not 'übermench' as Salleles found out.
2. Provide links to threads in other forums where he made a reference to SOTT as he says.
It could well be that 'ubermench' is genuine, but it would be helpful to have this clarified. As Ark mentioned it is indeed a curious handle.
Anders
G
Guest
Guest
I don't think "Ubermensch" is necessarily indicative of racism. It might just indicate admiration for Nietzsche. Also, if we notice, the person with the same call name but using a small u with the two dots, is more of a stickler for details regarding the term (it takes a slight extra effort to get those two dots over the u), and the writing style is very very different.Anders said:
In my opinion, objectivity means analyzing the facts before coming to conclusions, especially before speaking as if those as yet indeterminate conclusions are fact. This objectivity is what separates sincere discernment from the very tactics this forum is against.
Objectively speaking, Ubermensch has so far asked a valid question, and has not violated any of the rules of the forum. His feedback also seems rational to me. I am not saying it is wrong to be wary, or even to check out his background on other sites. It is, furthermore, not wrong to ask him to clarify to those who are suspicious of the call name, (which given the popularized associations of Nietzsche with Naziism, is not a "correct" call name to use).
However, evidence of underhandedness is at this point less than circumstantial, and is completely lacking as far as this person's behaviour on this forum is concerned. I guess what I am trying to say is that discernment requires discipline, and the willingness to observe with a high focus before action is taken.
Otherwise there is a danger that emotions generated by prior attacks can transfer to those who have not (as yet) exhibited behaviour to warrant them. I think this forum is an example with high standards. Part of maintaining those standards is screening prospective members, and part is for existing members to themselves maintain high standards of discipline and focus while doing that screening.
The last thing we want is to give disinformants any excuses.
Just my 2 cents on this.
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
Just to clarify some confusion about the original topic, the issue is that the gatekeepers of the internet in the U.S. want to charge content providers extra money to provide the bandwidth so that the content provider's customers can access the sites quickly. If you (site owners) don't pay it will take a longer time for people to load your sites. The crux is not between the ISP and the individual but between Verizon, say, and Amazon.com. The price of internet access will continue to go down for consumers but way up for site owners.
So this could be a real problem for sites like Signs of the Times.
So this could be a real problem for sites like Signs of the Times.
Yes indeed. But I remember, while living in the communist's Poland, I was taking lot of pain to listen to the "Voice of America", "Radio Free Europe" etc. I got a good shortwave radio. I knew all the frequencies, times, and how to listen to the almost impossible to listen to broadcasts - bacause of the powerful buzzing coming from the East. If people are looking for the truth - they will find their ways. All these buzzings did not help. When the time was ripe - all has changed. Whether it has changed for better? Today I am not so sure.
