Tag Archives: Internet

George Soros, Open Society Foundations, Reddit

Note from Dr. Eowyn:

Deplorable Patriot was a moderator on a pro-Trump Sub-Reddit thread, “Great Awakening”, which was recently banned by Reddit. Happily, “Great Awakening” relocated the same day to VOAT (here and here) and 8chan, where Deplorable Patriot continues to serve as a moderator.

INTO THE RABBIT HOLE WE GO

We now know that George Soros and the Open Society Foundation have been linked with Reddit employees in a mission to suppress Trump support groups on Reddit.

Current director of policy at Reddit, Jessica Ashooh.

Jessica Ashooh is believed by some to be responsible for the account “arabscarab,” which has been leading the charge to shut down the Q Anon movement on the Reddit platform — The Great Awakening, the second-largest pro-Trump subreddit. Ashooh started working for Reddit after an executive stint at the George Soros-funded Atlantic Council, which is also reportedly funded by the Chinese.

We also have a D list Free Lance reporter, D list rating being a gift on my part.    Click link below tweet to see where he admits to being connected to the Clinton Foundation in the comment section.

Rob Rousseau:

“I don’t always love working at reddit but personally getting to shut down the qanon sub because they were getting too close to exposing the truth was pretty special.”

https://twitter.com/robrousseau/status/1040001793818865664

This is the same guy who said:

“I would rather my daughter dated a member of  MS-13 than a member of the Republican Party”

https://twitter.com/robrousseau/status/997190886009245696?lang=en

Here is additional information that I have discovered

Various techniques to attack Trump support groups have been discovered and made public in the recent past. That is a whole conversation on its own so I will not get into that. I would just like to add one more method to the list. It’s a tool to assist individuals with their effort to take down various subreddits and individuals. This tool is called the Soros Enhancement Suite (SES). Information to what is in SES is limited; access to the information is at a location on Reddit that is private — “Invite only”. I know of its existence because of the following screenshot.

This is what you will find on the page. Here is the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/9goxc5/request_for_feedback_ses_upgrades_and_release/

Request for feedback: SES upgrades and release planning from TopMindsOfReddit

Now we know that technology linked to Soros is actually a reality. We also know with absolute certainty that r/TopMindsOfReddit is promoting it. But who is using the technology? We’ve heard rumors that there are people who get paid to disrupt pro-Trump subreddits. These individuals often brag about what they are doing and how they receive payment from Soros. When we confront them, they claim they are “joking and it’s irony.” Whatever. The following screenshot is part of what I have discovered. What you see here is a ledger that dates back 8 months. It’s a pay ledger which shows payments and members who received payments. Notice the Open Society Bot. Bots are portable AI’s that can be programmed to do various tasks.

Here is the link to the ledger: https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenSocietyBot/wiki/ledger

Now we have have proof of transactions being made and some of the individuals paid. I should also tell you that if you read the page, top to bottom including all comments, you’ll see more than enough evidence to support my claims. This applies to all screenshots I’ve provided here.

You might ask, “What are they paid with?”. Let me introduce you to the “Sorosbux”.

This is what you will find on page.  Here is the link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/7s1wyk/introducing_sorosbux_a_centralized_decentralized/

Introducing SorosBux, a centralized decentralized pre-mined fiat cryptocurrency for all your shilling needs. from neoliberal

 Here is the page that links you to everything:

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/78b7z1/updates_regarding_ctr_payments_and_general/

In the comment section you will  find “If your payment is overdue, write an email to transactions@opensocietyfoundations.org.

Updates regarding CTR payments, and general reminders about getting paid from neoliberal

You will notice that it mentions to get a “waves” account to withdraw your funds. I followed their instructions and set up an online wallet. These are some of the various way to cash out at “Waves”.

Here is the link to set up a Waves account: https://waveswallet.io/

That about covers it.  There is definitely some there there.  I believe this says just about all you need to know.  This is what I was able to release.  I have a whole lot more information that takes us deeper into the rabbit hole.  Please have a good day.

Please feel free to leave any comments

Respectfully,

Deplorable Patriot

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Teens aren't meeting their dates in real life anymore

einstein
Well this is sad. Any wonder why more than a quarter of millennials say they would replace a human lover with a DROID?
Via NY Post: Children are happy to have online-only relationships without meeting in real life, a poll shows. One in ten say they keep things strictly digital with a friend and one in five say they would be willing to do so.
A third also spend time making pictures look perfect before posting them online, the Internet Matters survey shows. Almost half said that they always or often post images of themselves having a great time and 34 percent agreed they spent time making their images look perfect before posting.
The survey carried out by Internet Matters to highlight the importance of children building their digital resilience so they can cope independently with the ups and downs of growing up online.
Positively 41 percent of kids said they found it is easier to open up about their feelings online than face to face. And a quarter of children said they find it easier to find love on the internet – and once they do, seven out of 10 said they go online to chat with their boyfriend or girlfriend.
The new toolkits offer parents age-specific tips and an easy-to-follow video guide from psychologist and Internet Matters ambassador Dr. Linda Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos said: “These figures reveal just how much relationships have changed as a result of the internet and social media and how children are continually facing new challenges. First love has always been a minefield – and even more so in the digital age when it’s all about sharing your life online.
“With all the benefits this brings, there will be times that children need to be resilient against the bad stuff that happens.
“By building a child’s digital resilience, parents will not only help keep their child safe online but essentially empower them to navigate digital issues on their own.”
Carolyn Bunting, CEO of Internet Matters, said: “We found that the majority of children see the role the internet plays when they build relationships as a positive thing. The key thing is for parents to talk to their children, and our resources enable them to do more confidently.”
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

A Look Inside the Net Neutrality Rules: It's Worse Than You Think!

Written by  for the New American Magazine
A Look Inside the Net Neutrality Rules: It's Worse Than You Think!

After the FCC made its “Net Neutrality” rules public late last week, The New American began poring over the 400 pages of rules and comments in the document, officially entitled “Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order” in an effort to inform our readers about what is actually in the rules.
What we found affirms the statements by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai that the rules are a threat to the future of the Internet and a danger to both liberty and a free market.
The report put forth by the regulatory regime is broken down into several parts. Before actually getting into the rules, the document spans 45 pages laying down philosophical and legal arguments for both the FCC’s justification and authority for regulating the Internet in the first place. Furthermore, the FCC document relies on and quotes from sources that have a history of attempting to abolish the free market capitalist nature of the Internet. As pernicious as those arguments and sources are, what’s actually in the rules is even worse.
The report repeatedly makes mention of the “bright-line rules” the FCC has created to keep the Internet open and free. “Bright-line” refers to rules, laws, or legal decisions that are clear and unambiguous. These are usually created when a previous rule, law, or legal decision left room for multiple interpretations. Cornell University Law School’s legal dictionary defines a bright-line as: “An objective rule that resolves a legal issue in a straightforward, predictable manner. A bright-line rule is easy to administer and produces certain, though, arguably, not always equitable results.” The USLegal website gives a similar definition and explains, “For example, in American statutory rape laws, the age of the victim and the age of the accused are the only relevant factors determinative of guilt or innocence. Because it is a bright-line rule, there is no balancing test to examine factors such as mistake of the accused, the misrepresentation of age by the minor, or the minor’s consent to sexual intercourse.”
So bright-line rules are clear, and do not allow anything other than the rule to be considered when determining a case.
What exactly are the bright-line rules the FCC has created to regulate the Internet?
1. No Blocking
“A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.”
While this seems straightforward, the devil is in the details. The report offers the following “clarification” to this rule; “The phrase ‘content, applications, and services’ again refers to all traffic transmitted to or from end users of a broadband Internet access service, including traffic that may not fit clearly into any of these categories.” One is left to wonder why the categories are listed in the first place, if the definition is broader than the categories.
The report’s “clarification” goes on to explain, “Further, the no-blocking rule adopted today again applies to transmissions of lawful content and does not prevent or restrict a broadband provider from refusing to transmit unlawful material, such as child pornography or copyright-infringing materials.” This opens up a whole new Pandora’s Box of ISPs being put in a position to determine what is “unlawful material.” Might ISPs block traffic to torrent sites that host “copyright-infringing materials” alongside public domain materials?
Since the “No Blocking” rule bans ISPs from blocking “lawful content,” what are the ramifications for services such as American Family Online, which offer filtered Internet access to customers who want to have pornography and other materials blocked at the server level? Since such content is lawful and the bright-line rule does not allow the fact that the customer wants such materials to be blocked to be taken into account, one is left to believe it would violate the rule.
Notice, too that the rule allows blocking for “reasonable network management.” One can imagine a new set of bright-line rules in the next iteration of Net Neutrality to clarify what constitutes “reasonable network management.”
2. No Throttling
“A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.”
Again, the details of the rule demonstrate its problems. The report explains, “With the no-throttling rule, we ban conduct that is not outright blocking, but inhibits the delivery of particular content, applications, or services, or particular classes of content, applications, or services. Likewise, we prohibit conduct that impairs or degrades lawful traffic to a non-harmful device or class of devices. We interpret this prohibition to include, for example, any conduct by a broadband Internet access service provider that impairs, degrades, slows down, or renders effectively unusable particular content, services, applications, or devices, that is not reasonable network management.”
Again, there is an exemption for “reasonable network management” that will undoubtedly need to be defined later.
The report continues, “For purposes of this rule, the meaning of ‘content, applications, and services’ has the same as the meaning given to this phrase in the no-blocking rule,” meaning lawful content of any type whether or not it fits any of the categories listed. As in the “No Blocking” rule, “unlawful material” is neither protected nor clearly defined: “Further, transfers of unlawful content or unlawful transfers of content are not protected by the no-throttling rule.”
Under the “No Throttling” rule, the commission is showing what it meant by its commitment to “forbear” regulating rates and plans. According to the continued explanation, “Because our no-throttling rule addresses instances in which a broadband provider targets particular content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, it does not address a practice of slowing down an end user’s connection to the Internet based on a choice made by the end user. For instance, a broadband provider may offer a data plan in which a subscriber receives a set amount of data at one speed tier and any remaining data at a lower tier.” Sounds nice until the next line: “If the Commission were concerned about the particulars of a data plan, it could review it under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard.” So much for forbearance.
The “no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard” will be covered in more detail later in this article. Spoiler alert: It’s particularly nasty. By application of the “no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard,” the report seems to hint at regulating both rates and plans and much, much more.
3. No Paid Prioritization
“A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization. “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity.”
If it weren’t for the “no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard,” this would possibly be the most excrable rule of them all. “Paid Prioritization” is a name given to the practice of ISPs striking deals with content providers (often their own affiliates) to speed up traffic to and from those services to make them more attractive and valuable to the end user. The entire argument against the practice is that it is not “fair” to services who can’t or won’t pay the price to have their traffic sped up.
The report’s explanation for the adoption of this rule is that many of the people who participated in the public comment period don’t like this practice and fear the results if it continues. According to the report, “The record is rife with commenter concerns regarding preferential treatment arrangements, with many advocating a flat ban on paid prioritization. Commenters assert that permitting paid prioritization will result in the bifurcation of the Internet into a ‘fast’ lane for those willing and able to pay and a ‘slow’ lane for everyone else. As several commenters observe, allowing for the purchase of priority treatment can lead to degraded performance — in the form of higher latency, increased risk of packet loss, or, in aggregate, lower bandwidth — for traffic that is not covered by such an arrangement.”
Commenters further argue that paid prioritization will introduce artificial barriers to entry, distort the market, damage competition, harm consumers, discourage innovation, undermine public safety and universal service, and restrict free expression. Never mind that ISPs have expenses connected to bandwidth, network maintenance, and equipment — all of which are more costly for services that use higher bandwidth, particularly those that stream large video files. It only makes good business sense to pass part of that faster-connection cost along to the consumers they are trying to reach with their content; however, because “commenters” were “concerned,” the FCC has banned the practice.
For a bright-line rule to mean anything, there can be no exceptions, especially those that are handled on a case-by-case basis; however, that is exactly what the FCC is doing with this rule. According to the report, “Given the potential harms to the virtuous cycle, we believe it is more appropriate to impose an ex ante ban on such practices, while entertaining waiver requests under exceptional circumstances.”
The report explains the waiver process: “Under our longstanding waiver rule, the Commission may waive any rule ‘in whole or in part, for good cause shown.’ General waiver of the Commission’s rules is appropriate only if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such a deviation will serve the public interest. In some cases, however, the Commission adopts specific rules concerning the factors that will be used to examine a waiver or exemption request. We believe that such guidance is appropriate here to make clear the very limited circumstances in which the Commission would be willing to allow paid prioritization. Accordingly, we adopt a rule concerning waiver of the paid prioritization ban that establishes a balancing test, as follows: The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.”
So “No Paid Prioritization” really means that rather than the free market deciding this practice, the FCC will decide it on a case-by-case basis. It is a system wide open for favoritism.
After listing the bright-line rules which have dominated most of the discussion of the Net Neutrality issue, the report addresses the rule that is the vilest of all:
Preventing Unreasonable Interference or Unreasonable Disadvantage that Harms Consumers and Edge Providers.
This is not a bright-line rule by even FCC Commission Chief Wheeler’s definition. He describes it in his commentary toward the beginning of the report, referring to ISPs as “gatekeepers” because he claims they have the ability and the motive to manipulate the Internet. He writes, “The bright-line bans on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization will go a long way to preserve the virtuous cycle. But not all the way. Gatekeeper power can be exercised through a variety of technical and economic means, and without a catch-all standard, it would be that, as Benjamin Franklin said, ‘a little neglect may breed great mischief.’ Thus, the Order adopts the following standard”:
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
What does Wheeler mean when he writes, “Gatekeeper power can be exercised through a variety of technical and economic means”? The body of the report puts it this way, “We believe that there may exist other current or future practices that cause the type of harms our rules are intended to address.” So now the report is attempting to protect end users from something that has not even happened yet, and the architects of this rule are not even trying to hide it.
How exactly will the regulatory regime go about enforcing a rule that prohibits something as nebulous as “unreasonably interfer[ing] or unreasonably disadvantag[ing]” the use of the Internet? On a case-by-case basis. The report states, “For that reason, we adopt a rule setting forth a no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard, under which the Commission can prohibit, on a case-by-case basis, practices that unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage the ability of consumers to reach the Internet content, services, and applications of their choosing or of edge providers to access consumers using the Internet.”
Here is the greatest danger of the whole scheme. This is total control of the Internet. It is how digital freedom dies.
This rule allows the FCC to unilaterally decide everything from rates to plans, from equipment to content, from the introduction of new technologies to the number of ISPs in a region. Everything. On a case-by-case basis. With only the conscience of the commissioners as their guide.
This is why concerned citizens must defeat Net Neutrality. Congress could set it aside. The courts could overturn it.
Americans must act soon in order to save the greatest form of communication, education, information, and innovation man has ever known.
AND THERE’S MORE:
FCC Cites Soros-Funded, Neo-Marxist-Founded Group 46 TIMES In New Regs
New internet regulations finally released by the Federal Communications Commission make 46 references to a group funded by billionaire George Soros and co-founded by a neo-Marxist.
The FCC released the 400-page document on Thursday, two weeks after it passed new regulations, which many fear will turn the internet into a public commodity and thereby stifle innovation.
“Leveling the playing field” in that way has been a clear goal of Free Press, a group dedicated to net neutrality which was founded in 2003.
As Phil Kerpen, president of the free-market group American Commitment, first noted, Free Press is mentioned repeatedly in the FCC document. Most of the references are found in footnotes which cite comments by Free Press activists supporting more internet regulation.
The term “Free Press” is mentioned 62 times in the regulations. Some are redundant mentions referring to the same Free Press activists’ comments in favor of more oversight. In total, the FCC cited Free Press’ pro-net neutrality arguments 46 times.
And from Godfather Politics:
Based on references in the regulations alone, it is clear that Barack Obama’s takeover of the Internet was actually written – in large part – by radical Marxist-leaning organizations; and it has also come to light that radical socialist-leaning organizations funded by Billionaire Socialist George Soros and others have spent approximately 200 MILLION DOLLARS ($200,000,000.00) to make Barack Obama’s tyrannical and dictatorial takeover of the Internet a reality.
And we have only one hope of stopping this master plan to transform the United States into a socialist utopia. As of this writing, Representative Marsha Blackburn and 43 other Republicans have signed onto legislation (H.R. 1212: The Internet Freedom Act) that will totally reverse this dictatorial Obama-FCC dictate… but this legislation is stalled in committee because John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are in no rush to bring it to the floor of the House and the Senate for a vote… and that needs to change right now.
 
Please follow and like us:
0
 

The magical mind reader


Scary, uh?
H/t my ol’ friend Sol
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Feds Seek Enhanced Social Media Data Mining Capability


Via infosecurity-us.com:
Out-Hoover Hoover: FBI wants massive data-mining capability for social media
27 January 2012
The FBI is asking industry for help in developing a far-reaching data-mining application that can gather and analyze intelligence from social media sites.
The FBI wants “to determine the capability of industry to provide an open source and social media alert, mapping, and analysis application”, the agency said in a request for information (RFI).

“The application must have the ability to rapidly assemble critical open source information and intelligence that will allow SIOC [Strategic Information and Operations Center] to quickly vet, identify, and geo-locate breaking events, incidents and emerging threats”, the RFI explained.

The application must be able to provide an “automated search and scrape capability of both social networking sites and open source news sites for breaking events, crisis, and threats.”


The FBI also wants the capability to analyze the social media data to provide early warning; detect credible threats or monitor adversarial situations; locate bad actors or groups and analyze their movements, vulnerabilities, limitations, and possible adverse actions; predict likely developments or future actions taken by bad actors; and develop databases on the information gathered from social media sites.

Nowhere in this detailed RFI, however, does the FBI ask industry to comment on the privacy implications of such massive data collection and storage of social media sites. Nor does the FBI say how it would define the “bad actors” who would be subjected this type of scrutiny.
-End 
I am dismissing the terrorist angle right off the bat, as given perhaps a handful of kook exceptions, most truly determined terrorists are not going to announce their intentions on a public forum.
That brings us to a far larger question which is, what exactly is the government looking to do here?
Having read a great deal of history over the course of my life, I am fully aware that all governments have their totalitarian leanings, and ours is no different.
Historically, governments do not much like dissent, and as they become larger and more powerful, their intolerance of dissent grows right along with them. At first, it is threats and intimidation. Later on, it becomes incarceration, and all too often after that come the gallows, firing squads, or the gas chambers.
Way back in the Usenet days, I formed a theory that government was most likely monitoring what was being posted, and probably recording things that might catch its interest. In the years since and given what I have seen, that theory has been reinforced several times over.
Of course, there is no case to be made that government monitoring public forums is illegal, but the idea that it may ultimately be not a little sinister is not all that much of a stretch.
After all, we are now existing in a surveillance society, and when you factor in the Obama administration’s track record of open hostility when it comes to its detractors, the term ‘bad actor’ could mean just about anything.
You see, it is not the terms themselves, but who gets to define them that ultimately matters.
-Dave

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Life Without the Net

James Kindall is a writer on Long Island, in New York. Last week, Hurricane Irene caused a power outage and Kindall was cut off from the Internet. This is the poem he wrote.
~Eowyn

Oh No! My Internet is Down

by James Kindall
We lost it when Irene blew through
Wi-Fi, laptop, iPad, too
On my Kindle, no bars found
Oh lord, the Internet is down

My Facebook friends no longer poke
I cannot tweet a single joke
My iTunes offer not a sound
Now the Internet is down

I finally fix that yellow chair
Clean my office, wash my hair
Then I wander all around
Now the Internet is down

The library’s packed. And Starbucks, too
I need my fix. Can I sit here too?
Is Wi-Fi in another town?
Now the Internet is down

You know, this thing could change my life
That woman there? Seems she’s my wife
I wondered why she hung around
Now the Internet is down

I have a daughter! Son! It’s true!
A family. Job. Good grief, who knew?
I feel better. My mind is sound
Now the Internet is down

I’ll search the house and find a nook
To finally read that Hawking book
My thoughts are clear, my soul unbound
Now the Internet is down

I’ll study Zen. Take up guitar
I’ll search for wisdom near and far
To Internet’s death, I raise my cup
Wait. Never mind. It came back up

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Who's Reading What

The other day, we were told by Pew Research that the Internet has taken over the print media as Americans’ source of news.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that no one is reading newspapers anymore. So who’s reading what? Fellowship of the Minds always stands ready to be of assistance. Here’s a handy guide!
H/t our beloved Miss May 😀
~Eowyn

An Easy Guide to Who’s Reading What

  1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
  2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
  3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
  4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don’t really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
  5. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a poor job of it, thank you very much.
     
  6. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren’t too sure who’s running the country and don’t really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
     
  7. The New York Post is read by people who don’t care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
  8. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
  9. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
     
  10. The Seattle Times is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.
    11. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn’t mind running the country, if they could find the time from indoor tanning, teeth whitening, and botox — and if they didn’t have to leave Southern California to do it.
  11. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren’t sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped people-of-color feminist gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy — provided of course, that they are not Republicans.
Please follow and like us:
0
 

ManBearPig and the Big Freeze


This astonishing picture shows the world as it is today – with half the Northern Hemisphere covered with snow and ice.
The image was released by the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Association (NOAA) on the day half of North America is in the grip of a severe winter storm. The map was created using multiple satellites from government agencies and the US Air Force.
The shroud of white stretches down from Alaska and sweeps through the Midwest and along to the Eastern seaboard. The bitter cold has reached as far as Texas and northern Mexico where in Ciudad Juarez temperatures today were expected to dip to minus 15C. Tens of millions of people chose to stay at home rather than venture out. In Chicago, 20in of snow fell leading to authorities closing schools for the first time in 12 years. The newspaper for Tulsa, Okalahoma, was unable to publish its print edition for the first time in more than a century. [Source: Daily Mail]
But never fear, boys and girls. Al Gore is here!
He insists on his blog that “increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of manbearpig man-made global warming.”
This is the same Gore who once proclaimed in a CNN “Late Edition” interview with Wolf Blitzer that “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” The same Gore whose new energy-wasting mansion (his 4th) in Montecito, Calif., has 6,500 square feet of living space and a swimming pool and fountains. His energy-wasting Nashville home is 10,000 square feet. The same Gore who had a net worth of a mere $1-2 million in 2000, but quickly fattened to an estimated $120 million by 2008 from his many global warming scams, such as an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize no less.
Hmm, let me see if I got it right:

  • If there’s increased heavy snowfalls, it’s man-made manbearpig global warming!
  • If it’s an unexpectedly warm and dry winter, it’s man-made manbearpig global warming!
  • If summer is beastly hot, it’s man-made manbearpig global warming!
  • If summer is unseasonably cool, it’s man-made manbearpig global warming!

In other words, the same cause can lead to entirely opposite results! Which means the “science” of man-made manbearpig global warming can and will never be proven wrong. Pure genius.
My looney-left friend Stephanie got it right all along 30 years ago:

“Don’t confuse me with facts! I’ve made up my mind!” 


H/t beloved fellows Tina, May, & Steve.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Pentagon & NASA Data Re-Routed Through China

Beijing computer user

Experts say a lot of data may have been accessed by China (Reuters)


We’ve been warned about this for some months now, but it appears that the reality of Cyber War has arrived.
Seven months ago, on April 8, 2010, 15% of the world’s Internet activity somehow was re-routed to Chinese servers, including data from Pentagon and NASA. But we’re only just being told about this.
As reported by ABC’s Lisa Millar on November 18, 2010:

The United States has revealed the details of a startling breakdown in cyber security in April, when 15 per cent of the world’s internet traffic was diverted through China. Experts describe it as one of the biggest redirections of internet data they have ever seen.

For 18 minutes on April 8, emails and internet material sent from the Pentagon and NASA were re-routed via Chinese servers.
A US government report blames China Telecom, but does not say why it might have happened or whether it was done intentionally. But experts say it is a sign of the security risks ahead.
The Heritage Foundation’s Dean Cheng, who specialises in Chinese political and security affairs, says a lot of data may have been accessed by China. “There are instances where situations are not necessarily the deliberate result of government decisions, but that doesn’t make them an accident,” he said. “Particularly when you are talking about 15 per cent of the global internet traffic. If it had been going on for a few minutes, that would be one thing as servers simply got overwhelmed. That it went on for so long would suggest that that’s a lot of data that could be scooped up.” Mr Cheng is convinced a lot of that data has now been archived in China and is slowly being studied. He says even the encrypted material would eventually be broken down.
Dale Meyerrose, a former chief information officer for the director of national intelligence, says this is a serious threat. “What we’re seeing here is a technique that may have in fact … have been a cover for something else,” he said. “In my 35 years of dealing with this, there’s an intended consequence and a series of unintended consequences and I think they always play out in these sorts of things.”
Mr Cheng says it is not just a US problem. “It’s not simply American information that has been made vulnerable, but that of our allies, including Australia.”
China has denied it hijacked the internet but the incident has added to global concerns about cyber security. US defence secretary Robert Gates this week described potential attacks as a huge future threat and a considerable current threat.

I don’t mean to be alarmist, but this shocking lapse in cyber-security — together with rising trade and currency tensions with China, as well as speculations that the so-called “contrail” seen off the coast of Los Angeles on November 8 was actually an intercontinental ballistic missile fired from a Chinese submarine — sure makes one wonder if the United States is in an undeclared war with the People’s Republic.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0