It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Internet Controls To Be Put In Place During Pandemic (ATS SHUTDOWN?)

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
However the death toll from random responses to adjuvants would be a lot less than the number requiring all those fema coffins and mass gravesites. So they probably have some killer ingredients in the vaccines.




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12
Hard to determine really since no one hardly is going to have adequate knowledge about internet infrastructure. Maybe it won't even slow, who knows.


So are you saying that hardly anyone knows how the internet works? I have a pretty in-depth idea of how it works, as I have a BSc (Hons) Degree in Computer Science. I am one of about 30 graduates in my year of Uni alone. So basically, there will be about 30 Computer Science graduates per year from one relatively small University in England. Isn't that enough people who know about the internet for you?

And to answer your question, yes the internet would run the risk of crashing due to the increase of High Bandwidth traffic across the servers, such as TV streaming, music and video downloading etc from both the ISP side and the web-host server side.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
im glad there are some intellectuals out there which arent AIPAC lobbiests on here saying GET THE VACCINE.

come to think of it, has the h1n1 actually hit israel?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Another ATS thread has been created regarding the same issue: US government report recommends blocking popular websites during pandemic flu outbreak

The difference between the other thread and mine is that mine takes from Reuters news story about the GAO report and the other thread takes from NaturalNews' story about the GAO report.

The NaturalNews story may have new information pertinent to this subject so I felt the need to link to that thread here.



[edit on (10/30/09) by AllSeeingI]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   
It will be used to stop the discussion and unofficial reporting on deaths and infection rate. ATS, infowars.com and other "underground" (non-mainstream) will be effected.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
It will be used to stop the discussion and unofficial reporting on deaths and infection rate. ATS, infowars.com and other "underground" (non-mainstream) will be effected.


Speaking of which: Why has www.nworeport.com been SHUT DOWN ?!



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   


And to answer your question, yes the internet would run the risk of crashing due to the increase of High Bandwidth traffic across the servers, such as TV streaming, music and video downloading etc from both the ISP side and the web-host server side
.

I am sorry to tell you this but you are wrong. I have been in the CS feild for more than 10 years. I have spent the last 5 supporting parts of the back bones. I am employed by a very large isp. I can tell you that at peak times the bandwidth is below 40% utilization. Even if it were to be maxed out 60% of the fiber that most of the large cities use is still dark. It could be lit in a very small amount of time and with little money spent. It is still dark because we simply do not use what we have now. With DWDM you can turn one pair of fiber into 25 GHz channel spacing for up to 160 channel operation SO bandwidth will not be a problem. Most rual isp's with high speed internet are backed by fiber. Thats why you see all these small town isp's offering up to 10 meg dsl packages. Verizon is pushing FIOS to homes now because it's faster and cheaper to maintain that CO's with DSLAM's. As far as servers go. Any server built in the last 5 years has enough power to serve up info at 3 times the rate they are now and be fine. Hardware is much cheaper and faster than it was 5 years ago. It is way ahead of the software. In the building I am in one of the large video streaming sites has a colo. One of many in the US and accross the world. It is running on a SAN with 1,280 FC drives and a OC 48 upstream. This is one site. This is replicated 26 times at different locations. I cna promise you that the internet will be fine.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
This morning on CNN the talk was all about American's distrust of the government, and distrust of the swine flu vaccines.

I'm pretty sure that they realize if they can cap off the internet, then citizens won't be privy to any information or the ability to communicate outside of the news.

In other words, their fear campaign regarding H1N1 failed miserably.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
If they shut down the internet there will be riots in the streets. A lot of kids now have nothing to do without it. They rely on it solely for entertainment.
I also will not be able to download porn so I will be out there with my pitchfork also.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Not to mention the internet has never been regulated. People in this country go crazy if the cable goes out. I've worked with the cable company before and it's amazing how they act, cursing and yelling. The last thing you want is a bunch of angry people with the Swine flu going to Washington because the internet is capped. Are they not thinking?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
it wont slow down the internet at all
they're just trying to control more



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
OMG@@@

I CANT TAKE IGNORANCE ANY LONGER!!

do people really not know how the internet works IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM???

If someone visits a website, it creates a drag on THAT PARTICULAR SERVER, not on anyone elses!

The internet traffic will not mulitply, it will remain the same!

people at work on the internet, are now people at home, ON THE INTERNET.

what is the difference?

this tube crap is driving me insane!

the only way they could really shut everyone down is at the isp level. turn off the isp and yea you kill any attempts at accessing the internet.

if you shutdown access to certain websites (ALSO KNOWN AS FREAKIN SERVERS, A COMPUTER BOX IN A COLD CLOSET) then you have just turned off a website, and people will go to another site that works.

guess what people, we arent short on websites in the world. you can always find another one.

now if they did end up turning peoples connections off, they would have to do it so that you couldnt access anywhere at all.

kinda like tv in the sense that if you turn off a channel, YOU STILL HAVE 800!

turn off your service and you cant get any except the channels that come directly from the service provider.

so lets say they shut down youtube ebay facebook myspace ats and anything else they deem neccessary... SO WHAT????!!!

you just go somewhere else for a little while. obviously there will be a sideeffect, and that would be CUTTING OFF PEOPLE FROM THE WORLD. i believe that would be the true intent.

if that is your goal, then you would just shut down the ISPs (INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER)

what is really funny about the ignorance here, is that it is almost impossible to turn off the internet anymore.

if everyone downloaded every website we could, then everyone gets a copy of (for the purposes of making things easy) XAMPP (free webserver program that uses php or anything else you want to install in it if you are good) then effectively we can recreate the internet.

hell all you really need is 2 computers connected with a ethernet cable and you have a network. we dont even need their "tubes"!

i cant believe a cable is called a tube anyways. i call them pipes, but still its just a word that means cable (fiberoptic copper).

theres this magical invention called WIFI. if everyone downloaded the internet and pooled it together onto "servers" then we could create a wifi network that could never be shut down.

with an enormous supply of cantennas we could rig up the entire country with an indestructible network capable of access from anyone with a wifi card.

i guess then they would have to get rid of the power grid.......

everyone is government is a f'n retard. i know 8 year olds smarter than they are!



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I'm very curious about something and please forgive my computer ignorance.

Is it technically possible to shut the internet down on a city by city basis? As in cut the servers off for each metro area? Would that shut off people's access?
I don't mean just cutting off say, Infowars or ATS, what have you, but all internet traffic for a specific region.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Makes sense, I suppose, since during the 1918 "Spanish Flu" there was mass propaganda and false reporting. Ever wonder why it was called the Spanish flu? I did, so I looked up. With that name one would have expected the first mass outbreak to have been centered there, that was not the case. What had happened was Spain was the only country reporting accurately since it didn't have any special censorship rules the virus and its severity and therefore had the most reliable news.

Now, apparently since the US was at the top of list for countries first infected, the US was using its "free" media to censor the flu out of coverage, even in 1918. I had constantly wondered what happened to journalistic integrity, I guess it was over before it began.

Which brings us to the current situation. In 1918, it would have difficult for John in Iowa to get information from Spain, if he even knew it was reliable (which he probably didn't) John believed his government and the whole country was fighting the virus battle. Now, in 2009 John in Iowa has the internet and no matter if he visits alternative sites or not, he EASILY access the media reports of any country he wishes. These reports may or may not agree with the reports coming into Iowa, and more importantly it may outright conflict.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Unregistered
 


I have had enough of this nonsense. I am going to tell Morpheus to have you all plugged back in.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I guess we could all go out and buy H.A.M. radios in case the "Information Superhighway was shut down. That way we'd at least have a bicycle path to use.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nik1halo
So are you saying that hardly anyone knows how the internet works? I have a pretty in-depth idea of how it works, as I have a BSc (Hons) Degree in Computer Science. I am one of about 30 graduates in my year of Uni alone. So basically, there will be about 30 Computer Science graduates per year from one relatively small University in England. Isn't that enough people who know about the internet for you?

And to answer your question, yes the internet would run the risk of crashing due to the increase of High Bandwidth traffic across the servers, such as TV streaming, music and video downloading etc from both the ISP side and the web-host server side.


I'm calling BS. The bandwidth of the internet has increased over the years at a huge rate. Just 10 years ago it was all dialup and 56k. Now, the average internet user has tons of bandwidth available to them - despite the growing number of users as well.

Furthermore, there is no single "internet". The connections are all done server to server. At best, only some pipelines would be slowed down. The individual servers of "popular sites" would bog down LONG before the pipelines would. Evidence of such came during the last eclipse over Asia, as live feed sites became near impossible to load. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS.

Outside the individual servers of popular sites, it would be the residential areas that would have trouble if a bunch of residents used the internet. Like what happens when a ISP gets too many customers. You don't see problems with the rest of the internet when that happens do you?

Now I remember why I refuse to hire college grads in my tech department. A bunch of dumbnuts who think they know it all because they have a little piece of paper, but have 0 working experience and no clue how things really work who want too much money.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Before over-reacting, let us examine what they are proposing: during times of "national emergency" non-critical websites will be blocked to prevent the internet being impacted by too many users accessing high-demand websites. I suppose that would be any site that is streaming audio or video since that is bandwidth intensive.

Therefor, normal data sites and e-mails should not be blocked nor should any other site that does not create two-way traffic. The mistake that is made here is announcing the plan and including possible scenarios, i.e., use of porn-sites or YouTube, that have offended so many people.

It does not appear that they are really suggesting a take-over of the internet by the government, merely a "rationing" of bandwidth access to allow normal, business use of the internet to continue. I do not think the restrictions would apply only in times of alleged pandemics or that the major concern is too many people being home from work and resorting to spurious use of the internet.

It seems that the actual targets are those sites that do provide information for the masses that perhaps the government would prefer to monitor or eliminate. I don't think ATS is at risk as, at times, it appears that the gov uses it for their own benefit.

BTW, when/if this plan does go into effect, protest would be futile. To whom are we going to protest? Once an legal procedure is enacted, protests could be perceived as an illegal action.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Lavey2
 


So why not just organize a boycott of Internet2 and similiar collectivist programs? Because you have to have the internet no matter how you get it? Seems cyclical to complain yet actively do nothing.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
One other point was raised in the comments: that is the apparent shutdown of sites that allow people to sell used items. As revealed in another ATS forum a few months ago, the Consumer Protection act states that used appliances can not be resold from one user to another. The "fear" here is that the item might be defective and dangerous to use or it might have been on a recall list and not properly serviced.

Of course, this would put garage sales, consignment stores, classified ads and CraigsList out of business. This line of reasoning could also be extended to used cars, making it illegal to buy a used car from anyone other than an authorized dealer.

I am not sure if that act was actually passed. If it was not passed this time around, it will probably come back again in some other, disguised form. OF course, our system of Democracy does not allow us to vote on these things, all we can do is "protest" to our representatives. Since the opinions of the average citizen do not carry as much weight as those of lobbyists, if appliance manufacturers or auto companies decide this is in their best interests, the act will be passed. Protesting after the fact is a waste of time.




top topics



 
39
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join