the internet 2......... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You a soo full of "BEEP"
You realise that you lose a lot of credibility when you stoop to this, don't you?
the internet 2......... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You think a government regulated Internet where every website you visit is monitored is funny? Do you work for the government? Are you a spook working for the CIA? The way you carry on I wouldn't be surprised.
I feel SOOO celver when i talk to you.
You take things you just imagined and then talk about them like facts.
You think I imagined this? Dude, the United Nations is talking about it.
were did you here that: a Star Treck convention or a X-files Convention... a place were there werent any girls no doubt....
Um, no. I got it from a newspaper article I read but here I'll go one better for you. http://www.internet2.edu/
Educate yourself. And what do girls allegedly not being in attendance at X-Files or Star Trek conventions have ANYTHING to do with what we are talking about?
let me tell you about some truths that you should know:
1: The Bogey-man does not exist
2: Alex Jones´ documentaries are not based on truth, but fiction
3: Santa Claus is not a CIA-agent, in fact he does not exist at all
4: The internet 2 is just a paranoid fantasy made up by losers
5: George Bush did not plan 9/11
6: Elvis does in fact NOT live any more
Stop being immature. Answer some of my questions and prove to me that you're not twelve years old.
let me tell you about some truths that you should know:
http://www.internet2.edu/
Man - do you even read the things you post... let us say that just an inch of that lie you just said was true, then they could never implement it. THERE WOULD BE TO MUCH INFORMATION..... THINK FOR GOD SAKE, THINK. but that is apparantly not your strongest side. secondly: there would be to many government that would oppose it: France, China and russia.......
Go to the website and read about it. I can't believe that you think a country like China would be opposed to something like this. They are doing this already!!
READ THE NEWSPAPERS!
news home | top | world | intl | natl | op | pol | govt | business | tech | sci | entertain | sports | health | odd | sources
AP • Reuters • New York Times • CBS • MSNBC • USA TODAY • FOX News • Poll • Photos
Yahoo accused in jailing of 2nd China Internet user
Feb 9, 2:05 AM (ET)
By Lindsay Beck
BEIJING (Reuters) - Yahoo Inc. provided evidence to Chinese authorities that led to the imprisonment of an Internet writer, lawyers and activists said on Thursday, the second such case involving the U.S. Internet giant.
The latest storm over Western Internet companies in China comes just weeks after Web search giant Google Inc. came under fire for saying it would block politically sensitive terms on its new China site, bowing to conditions set by Beijing.
Writer and veteran activist Liu Xiaobo said Yahoo had co-operated with Chinese police in a case that led to the 2003 arrest of Li Zhi, who was charged with subverting state power and sentenced to eight years in prison after trying to join the dissident China Democracy Party.
Yahoo gave public security agents details of Li's registration as a Yahoo user, Liu said in an article posted on U.S.-based Chinese-language news portal Boxun, citing a defense statement from Li's lawyers.
A spokeswoman for Yahoo said the company was looking into the matter.
"As in most jurisdictions, governments are not required to inform service providers why they are seeking certain information and typically do not do so," spokeswoman Mary Osako said.
"We would not know whether a demand for information focused on murder, kidnapping or another crime," she said by phone from California, adding Yahoo thought the Internet was a positive force in China.
But media watchdog Reporters Without Borders said the argument that Yahoo simply responds to requests from authorities did not hold water.
"Yahoo certainly knew it was helping to arrest political dissidents and journalists, not just ordinary criminals," it said in a statement.
PROFITS AND PRINCIPLES
The group, along with the Committee to Protect Journalists, also called on Yahoo to disclose information on all Internet journalists and writers whose identities it has revealed to Chinese authorities.
The case is the latest in a string of examples that highlight the friction between profits and principles for Internet companies doing business in China, the world's number-two Internet market.
In September, Yahoo was accused of helping Chinese authorities identify Shi Tao, who was sentenced last April to 10 years in prison for leaking state secrets abroad.
Yahoo defended itself at the time, saying it had to abide by local laws.
In December, Microsoft shut down a blog at MSN Spaces belonging to outspoken blogger Michael Anti under Chinese government orders.
The government has also been pressuring mainstream Internet news Web sites in what analysts say is a tightening of the atmosphere for intellectuals.
A notice issued by the Beijing Internet Propaganda Management Office earlier this week listed media sites it said were reprinting information that went beyond what was lawful.
"At present, do not use what they report on political news; especially do not use them for frontpage news on the Internet," the notice warned.
Its list included the Web sites of adventurous newspapers like Guangdong-based Southern Metropolis News, but also the International Herald Leader, which belongs to the state news agency Xinhua, and regional dailies such as the Lanzhou Morning News.
Print editions have also been targeted.
Chen Jieren, the chief editor of the Beijing-based Public Interest Times, was sacked on Wednesday over a report criticizing authorities, the South China Morning Post said.
The case follows the dismissals of the editor of the outspoken Beijing News and the closure of Freezing Point, the weekly supplement of the China Youth Daily known for its critical commentaries and investigative reporting.
(Additional reporting by John Ruwitch in Hong Kong and Guo Shipeng in Beijing)
Is all this clear enough for you?
http://www.internet2.edu/
secondly: there would be to many government that would oppose it: France, China and russia.......
The following is from - http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/
The government of the People's Republic of China has a longstanding set of policies restricting the information to which citizens are exposed, and that which they may themselves publicly say. The Internet poses a new challenge to such censorship, both because of the sheer breadth of content typically available, and because sources of content are so often remote from Chinese jurisdiction, and thus much more difficult to penalize for breaching restrictions on permissible materials. There is some evidence that the government has attempted to prevent the spread of unwanted material by preventing the spread of the Internet itself, but a concomitant desire to capture the economic benefits of networked computing has led to a variety of strategies to split the difference. For example, the government might encourage Internet access through cybercafes rather than in private spaces so that customers' surfing can be physically monitored by others in the cafe. As a technical matter, anecdotal reports have described a shifting set of barriers to surfing the web from Chinese points of access -- sites that are reported unavailable or domain names that are unknown to the system or that lead to unexpected destinations, individual pages that are blocked, and the use of search keywords that results in temporary limits to further searches.
As with most filtering regimes, whether implemented at the client, ISP, or government level, no list is made available of the sites blocked or of the methodologies used to block them. Further, while the government-connected Internet Society of China (not a chapter of the international Internet Society) has asked Internet service providers and content creators to sign a pledge including self-filtering, few official statements document the existence of government-maintained web filtering, much less the criteria employed and thresholds necessary to elicit a block. We therefore sought to investigate the growing set of methods by which Internet filtering is accomplished, and to collect and distribute a list of blocked sites and pages -- a list that is large in absolute terms even if small relative to the size of the Internet and to the total amount of blocked content, and a list that is diverse even if not perfectly representative of all blocked content. Such a list allows us and others to begin to assess the nature and scope of filtering within China, with particular attention to non-sexually explicit web sites rendered inaccessible there.
Having requested some 204,012 distinct web sites, we found more than 50,000 to be inaccessible from at least one point in China on at least one occasion. Adopting a more conservative standard for determining which inaccessible sites were intentionally blocked and which were unreachable solely due to temporary glitches, we find that 18,931 sites were inaccessible from at least two distinct proxy servers within China on at least two distinct days. We conclude that China does indeed block a range of web content beyond that which is sexually explicit. For example, we found blocking of thousands of sites offering information about news, health, education, and entertainment, as well as some 3,284 sites from Taiwan. A look at the list beyond sexually explicit content yields insight into the particular areas the Chinese government appears to find most sensitive.
the internet 2......... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
http://www.internet2.edu/
Once again, why has the Bush Administration failed to release the surveillance tapes from a nearby gas station which filmed the "plane" crashing into the Pentagon?
reply
share
loleralacartelort7890
18 years ago
Little boy, led me answer:
""" why has the Bush Administration failed to release the surveillance tapes from a nearby gas station which filmed the "plane" crashing into the Pentagon"""
Do you have proof that there actually were filmed anything but what they say??
Ans secondly, you are full of "BEEP". If the internet2 came into existens, the US-Government could not control it....... that is the worst thing... people like you actually want it to be true (though it is wishfull thinking) so that you can proof you fantasy crackputtheories..
i dont want to write a long post like you, unlike you, i have a life.
reply
share
sjensen-4
18 years ago
ok, ill answer your question, though i have done so many times before.... but i probaply gave you a good answer, an answer you could comprihend in you mind.
""Once again, why has the Bush Administration failed to release the surveillance tapes from a nearby gas station which filmed the plane crashing into the Pentagon?"" - because it was a violent picture, people were killed there,.... secondly, people on the outside, should never see things that are filmed inside pentagon,,, it would be to compromissing... probably they were damagad by the fire... I HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION BEFORE... you never read what other people post do you... you only like to write something and see it,, you like to hear your own voice,,, dont you?? yes you do... and secondly "surveillance tapes from a nearby gas station" ..... hey you never mentioned the gas station before - therefore it must be infatile lie because you were begining to lose the argument... and even if there were a gas station, i doubt the cameras would be filming toward the pentagon, i doubt the pentagon would allow (THINK GODDAMIT).. and thirdly: cameras in gas-sations always film down into the ground, from the roof, to filmm the cars from above (dont you know anything about society??) The pentagon tapes would probaply NOT film up in the air, as you think... no the probaply only film the entencies to the building and the hallways inside the building.... and even if the were a camera that filmed the angle where the plane fell down, it even happend very fast, and the camera was probaply damaged....
i have answered you question, though ive done so before,,,, if you have the intellectual level to read my answer, then do it (though you have proven the lack of it before, when you never read what people say )
reply
share
fat3209
18 years ago
Sjensen,
ok, ill answer your question, though i have done so many times before.... but i probaply gave you a good answer, an answer you could comprihend in you mind.
This is the first time you have attempted to answer this particular question. And you have failed to answer it.
""Once again, why has the Bush Administration failed to release the surveillance tapes from a nearby gas station which filmed the plane crashing into the Pentagon?"" - because it was a violent picture, people were killed there
Because it was a violent picture? People were killed there? Are you serious? What about the constant news coverage of September 11th? We saw people leaping to their deaths. This is not a valid answer.
secondly, people on the outside, should never see things that are filmed inside pentagon,,, it would be to compromissing
I have said AT LEAST three times now, I don't want to see what happened INSIDE the Pentagon. I want to see what happened OUTSIDE.
probably they were damagad by the fire
This is mere speculation on your behalf, you are guessing.
and secondly "surveillance tapes from a nearby gas station" ..... hey you never mentioned the gas station before - therefore it must be infatile lie because you were begining to lose the argument
The only thing you have proven by this statement is that you do NOT read my posts. I have mentioned the gas station AT LEAST three times if not more.
and even if there were a gas station, i doubt the cameras would be filming toward the pentagon, i doubt the pentagon would allow (THINK GODDAMIT)..
Once again, you are speculating.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html
This article talks about the gas station near the Pentagon which is open ONLY to Department of Defence personnel. The man who worked there on the morning of September 11th has said that within minutes of the Pentagon explosion FBI agents arrived and confiscated the surveillance tapes. The man who worked there said that he did not get a chance to see what was on the tapes although they were facing where the "plane" hit.
and thirdly: cameras in gas-sations always film down into the ground, from the roof, to filmm the cars from above (dont you know anything about society??)
Dude, I worked in a gas station for three months a few years back. We had maybe twenty surveillance cameras alone. Twenty! And three of them filmed from an angle in which you could see cars in the gas station AND buildings on the other side of the street.
The pentagon tapes would probaply NOT film up in the air, as you think
Once again, you are guessing. The Bush Administration released five frames of video taken from one of the Pentagon's exterior surveillance cameras and you can clearly see the explosion but there is NO plane.
I never said they filmed "up in the air." But who knows, maybe they have cameras that film up in the air as well.
no the probaply only film the entencies to the building and the hallways inside the building
Do you have any real answers, with evidence to support them, or are all of your answers merely guesses like these have been so far?
and even if the were a camera that filmed the angle where the plane fell down, it even happend very fast, and the camera was probaply damaged
You are guessing again. Why not try to find some news articles which back up your claims? To say that the Pentagon is equipped with surveillance cameras that cannot detect fast moving objects, that large areas of the Pentagon are unsurveilled and that only one camera films each section is in my opinion, delluded.
i have answered you question, though ive done so before,,,, if you have the intellectual level to read my answer, then do it (though you have proven the lack of it before, when you never read what people say )
Why do you get personal all the time?
Please answer my question from ealier;
The Bush administration's resistance to any 9/11 inquiry. After the February 2003 Columbia space shuttle disaster (in which seven people died) three official investigations were initiated within days. In contrast, the Bush administration fought tooth and nail for a year to avoid any official investigation of an event in which about 3000 people died. Bush and Cheney initially refused to testify before the Kean Commission. When they finally did agree (as Wikipedia tells us):
they did so only under several conditions:
That they would be allowed to testify jointly;
That they would not be required to take an oath before testifying;
That the testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers;
That these notes would not be made public.
Why would they testify ONLY with all these conditions? You realise that by NOT taking an oath before testifying they can lie all they want to about anything they are asked?\
reply
share
sjensen-4
18 years ago
man, get a life
you admit that you opponent lies all the time, so must you
i answered you questions, and yet it is not eneugh, you dont have any evidence of anything.... i answered the quostion about the pentagon so good, that you were begining to be afraid that your world of lies and fantasy were comming down.
all the stuff you write about the commisions of 9/11 are all lies - and you know it - i have heard the opposite from respectable sources, long ago.... You are not respectable, therefore you are a liar.
you use all that space on convincing 1 guy (me), that your lies are the truth, convincing a guy who will never beleive in your crackput-theories, because they are full of lies, and because we havent heard anything about this in the repsected media. therefore it is a lie.
you use so much time to convice a guy, who will never get convinced, therefore i say:
man, get a life
reply
share
judasmclean
18 years ago
You make me ashamed of being a human being. First off, like people have said, watch the 2nd edition of 'Loose change' in conjunction with '911: In plane site', then come back here with some credible claims and answer the questions asked. If you can't then you have no right to talk. I dunno why I'm even wasting my time, I don't care what you think. More people are knowing the truth everyday, and you sir will soon be eating your own *beep*
reply
share
sjensen-4
18 years ago
judasmclean: you cant be ashamed of being a human being - you are not a human.
reply
share
suncloud1
18 years ago
"man, get a life
you admit that you opponent lies all the time, so must you
i answered you questions, and yet it is not eneugh, you dont have any evidence of anything.... i answered the quostion about the pentagon so good, that you were begining to be afraid that your world of lies and fantasy were comming down.
all the stuff you write about the commisions of 9/11 are all lies - and you know it - i have heard the opposite from respectable sources, long ago.... You are not respectable, therefore you are a liar.
you use all that space on convincing 1 guy (me), that your lies are the truth, convincing a guy who will never beleive in your crackput-theories, because they are full of lies, and because we havent heard anything about this in the repsected media. therefore it is a lie.
you use so much time to convice a guy, who will never get convinced, therefore i say:
man, get a life"
----------------
makes us wonder what you are doing here exactly, except calling people crackpots and loosers in just about all the threads about this movie, and ridiculing whoever believes in this information (did you research it before you started to slander it?) .. one could ponder the motives of this..
the get a life part.. well.. if you are never going to believe any of this eventhough it's staring you in the face.. well.. then why are you even here? just to piss people off? maybe your the one who should get a life.
you know if you're so enthusiastic about killing innocent people then wtf are you doing here eh? Because what your actually saying is that you condone killing innocent people due to something you haven't even researched, but just believe the public explanation for. who's the crackpot here and who's the mindless drone?
and this statement just makes me laugh: "You are not respectable, therefore you are a liar."
that's not even remotely logical.. lol :D
makes me think of a song with rage against the machine, called bullet in the head.. here is a little text from that song..
"just victims of the in-house drive by.. they say jump you say how high?"
reply
share