100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: North Korea, No Internet? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
North Korea's Internet down; cause unknown
Experts say there are four possibilities. - The North Koreans themselves could have withdrawn their IP space from the wider Internet, as Syria has done in the past. "That, under normal circumstances, would be the best explanation for what we're seeing," said Matthew Prince, CEO of content delivery network provider CloudFlare. That could be a pre-emptive move to prevent any online attacks, including any U.S. retaliation, from reaching the country. - China Unicom could have cut North Korea off from the Internet. Technically, that would look no different than if North Korea itself had done so. The U.S. has asked for China's help in blocking North Korea from the Internet. - The North Korean Internet could be under a denial of service attack. It's impossible to know how much bandwidth flows into North Korea, but it's likely quite small. One indicator that it's an attack is the intermittent, up and down, quality of the North Korean Internet over the past day. Prince said it's "probably risky to speculate that that attack is being launched by any state-based entity." "If I were speculating, it's equally as likely that it's some plucky 15-year-old in a Guy Fawkes mask." "Because there is such a minimal amount of activity in and out of North Korea, the level of sophistication you would need to disrupt that network is relatively de minimis" as well, he added. - Today is the day the routers happened to go down in North Korea for reasons unrelated to any attack or other reason. "It could be even that there were power gird problems," said Cowie. There was no immediate response from the State Department or White House to questions about whether the outage was a result of the "proportionate response" President Barack Obama promised last week to the crippling cyberattack on Sony, which U.S. officials say was orchestrated by Pyongyang. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Korea's Internet down; cause unknown Experts say there are four possibilities. - The North Koreans themselves could have withdrawn their IP space from the wider Internet, as Syria has done in the past. "That, under normal circumstances, would be the best explanation for what we're seeing," said Matthew Prince, CEO of content delivery network provider CloudFlare. That could be a pre-emptive move to prevent any online attacks, including any U.S. retaliation, from reaching the country. - China Unicom could have cut North Korea off from the Internet. Technically, that would look no different than if North Korea itself had done so. The U.S. has asked for China's help in blocking North Korea from the Internet. - The North Korean Internet could be under a denial of service attack. It's impossible to know how much bandwidth flows into North Korea, but it's likely quite small. One indicator that it's an attack is the intermittent, up and down, quality of the North Korean Internet over the past day. Prince said it's "probably risky to speculate that that attack is being launched by any state-based entity." "If I were speculating, it's equally as likely that it's some plucky 15-year-old in a Guy Fawkes mask." "Because there is such a minimal amount of activity in and out of North Korea, the level of sophistication you would need to disrupt that network is relatively de minimis" as well, he added. - Today is the day the routers happened to go down in North Korea for reasons unrelated to any attack or other reason. "It could be even that there were power gird problems," said Cowie. There was no immediate response from the State Department or White House to questions about whether the outage was a result of the "proportionate response" President Barack Obama promised last week to the crippling cyberattack on Sony, which U.S. officials say was orchestrated by Pyongyang. We should try out some of our satellite killers on their satellites. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star Wars here we come.
Welcome to the sci-fi future about to be unveiled. where drones the size of mosquitoes invade offices and double doors and keep tabs on all happenings, and all words. resistance will be futile. Al is right. the noose is tight, very tight. he is just going about it the wrong way. as he forgets all that be planned does not always come to fruition as planned, so never put a bullseye on one's forehead, as that will accomplish nothing but failure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star Wars here we come. Welcome to the sci-fi future about to be unveiled. where drones the size of mosquitoes invade offices and double doors and keep tabs on all happenings, and all words. resistance will be futile. Al is right. the noose is tight, very tight. he is just going about it the wrong way. as he forgets all that be planned does not always come to fruition as planned, so never put a bullseye on one's forehead, as that will accomplish nothing but failure. Bring on the Fem bots! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
damn, who couldn't wouldn't love alleoops.
but what you exude is truly the stride of mentality that is gonna win and not be trampled along with it's loved one's. the ultimate plan, even wise leaders filled with leadership egotism and arrogant bravado who converged and planned don't know. they wish they did. or they wouldn't need the NSA to track every keystroke. fine sailin mates. those without hate who find no guilt in any shall succeed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star Wars here we come. Welcome to the sci-fi future about to be unveiled. where drones the size of mosquitoes invade offices and double doors and keep tabs on all happenings, and all words. resistance will be futile. Al is right. the noose is tight, very tight. he is just going about it the wrong way. as he forgets all that be planned does not always come to fruition as planned, so never put a bullseye on one's forehead, as that will accomplish nothing but failure. You mean like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WviiQzdCB50 TPP Unraveling? Odumbo comes up empty handed again. Boy am I so glad he is on the side of the globalist, that buffoon could dry up a wet dream. But then the deal is totally raveling as the veil is lifted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnC1mqyAXmw TPP: The Dirtiest Trade Deal You've Never Heard Of. But the big question is just what kind of sick/diseased mind thinks this is some sort of acceptable behavior. Actually more than one disease: Solipsism, the ideology that only one's own mind is sure to exist. Solipsists contend that knowledge of anything outside of one's own mind is unsure, hence there is no such thing as objective truth, and nothing about the external world and it's workings can actually be known. A perception they are god. Solipsist are mentally ill. Statism, the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people. A statist is an individual who erroneously believes that there is such a thing as "authority" vested in certain human beings magically giving them the "right to rule" over other people. This "authority" means that certain people who we call "government", have the "moral right" to issue commands to those whom they rule (those under their "jurisdiction"), and that their "subjects" (slaves) have a "moral obligation" to obey the arbitrary dictates set by their masters. Most simply put, a statist is someone who believes in the legitimacy of slavery. And it takes but 3% to 7% of a population to effect change and freedom has passed that threshold. At present we are in a peaceful resolution to the problems but at the same time are ready to defend our liberties with our lives, our fortunes and our honors. The first to go will be the bankers as they detonate their own system to discover just like Arab Spring their failure to move forward. The second to perish will be the globalist government as nation after nation destroys anything in blue. And last but not least, the City of London will be reduced to ashes as it should have been in 1215. Many throughout history have tried and all have failed. And in today's world it will not take a number of years, the resistance is ready and will win even if it has to be with sticks and stones. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AL!
ur so busy lookin at your own damn smart feet you can't sea the sky. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AL!
ur so busy lookin at your own damn smart feet you can't sea the sky. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AL! ur so busy lookin at your own damn smart feet you can't sea the sky. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statism - the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people. - Mark Passio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AL! ur so busy lookin at your own damn smart feet you can't sea the sky.
go figure... after the maze you carry other's thru with quotes from all across the board... smiles you would do a cheap "off topic"... cheap cheap cheap... only when it ain't what you wanna hear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statism - the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people. - Mark Passio 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statism - the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people. - Mark Passio Hey you got a definition right, congratulations. And the one that I use also, so much more to the point in a language much clearer than others. But then you are but trying to use the emotional to instill that which isn't there. You really should study the teachings of Mark, they would help to clear up so many shortcomings. However, why we are on the subject, something you seem to subscribe to, let's put a little more definition behind this: A statist is a man who believes that some men have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder others. To be put into practice, this belief has to be implemented by the political doctrine that the government-the state-has the right to initiate the use of physical force against its citizens. How often force is to be used, against whom, to what extent, for what purpose and for whose benefit, are irrelevant questions. The basic principle and the ultimate results of all statist doctrines are the same: dictatorship and destruction. The rest is only a matter of time. I do like this one but it is not so direct and to the point as mine. Yes mine, words framed by Mark but bought by me, hook line and sinker. In the infamous words of Mark, "There is nothing new here, I have heard this before somewhere else. This person covers this. I have read this in this book. Ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing new here, I am not going to present anything new." But as to the other definition, I have no agreement, therefore I use quotes. As to source, well there is always google. But that is not the end, other sources go into much more detail: A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or "welfare" type-is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims. If the term “statism” designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism—the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies—which has characterized most of human history. In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. The ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.” Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. The history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind’s survival. Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation. And from another: The ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.” Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. The history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind’s survival. Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statism - the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people. - Mark Passio Hey you got a definition right, congratulations. And the one that I use also, so much more to the point in a language much clearer than others. But then you are but trying to use the emotional to instill that which isn't there. You really should study the teachings of Mark, they would help to clear up so many shortcomings. However, why we are on the subject, something you seem to subscribe to, let's put a little more definition behind this: A statist is a man who believes that some men have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder others. To be put into practice, this belief has to be implemented by the political doctrine that the government-the state-has the right to initiate the use of physical force against its citizens. How often force is to be used, against whom, to what extent, for what purpose and for whose benefit, are irrelevant questions. The basic principle and the ultimate results of all statist doctrines are the same: dictatorship and destruction. The rest is only a matter of time. I do like this one but it is not so direct and to the point as mine. Yes mine, words framed by Mark but bought by me, hook line and sinker. In the infamous words of Mark, "There is nothing new here, I have heard this before somewhere else. This person covers this. I have read this in this book. Ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing new here, I am not going to present anything new." But as to the other definition, I have no agreement, therefore I use quotes. As to source, well there is always google. But that is not the end, other sources go into much more detail: A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or "welfare" type-is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims. If the term “statism” designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism—the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies—which has characterized most of human history. In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. The ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.” Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. The history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind’s survival. Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation. And from another: The ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.” Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. The history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind’s survival. Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation. 't was actually in your Post,you just forgot to credit the Guy! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you don't fight a giant to get what you want, you make love to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statism - the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people. - Mark Passio Hey you got a definition right, congratulations. And the one that I use also, so much more to the point in a language much clearer than others. But then you are but trying to use the emotional to instill that which isn't there. You really should study the teachings of Mark, they would help to clear up so many shortcomings. However, why we are on the subject, something you seem to subscribe to, let's put a little more definition behind this: A statist is a man who believes that some men have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder others. To be put into practice, this belief has to be implemented by the political doctrine that the government-the state-has the right to initiate the use of physical force against its citizens. How often force is to be used, against whom, to what extent, for what purpose and for whose benefit, are irrelevant questions. The basic principle and the ultimate results of all statist doctrines are the same: dictatorship and destruction. The rest is only a matter of time. I do like this one but it is not so direct and to the point as mine. Yes mine, words framed by Mark but bought by me, hook line and sinker. In the infamous words of Mark, "There is nothing new here, I have heard this before somewhere else. This person covers this. I have read this in this book. Ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing new here, I am not going to present anything new." But as to the other definition, I have no agreement, therefore I use quotes. As to source, well there is always google. But that is not the end, other sources go into much more detail: A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or "welfare" type-is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims. If the term “statism” designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism—the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies—which has characterized most of human history. In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. The ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.” Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. The history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind’s survival. Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation. And from another: The ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.” Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. The history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind’s survival. Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation. 't was actually in your Post,you just forgot to credit the Guy!
Didn't forget at all, a little problem with comprehension? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AL! ur so busy lookin at your own damn smart feet you can't sea the sky.
go figure... after the maze you carry other's thru with quotes from all across the board... smiles you would do a cheap "off topic"... cheap cheap cheap... only when it ain't what you wanna hear. Let's define cheap, the constant attempt of taking all topics and rendering them to a topic of your desire. You are correct, I do not want to hear it unless it has to do with the topic of the thread. I offer you an opportunity under another thread to post to your hearts desire. Now if you don't want to discuss the North Korean internet topic, then start something else. |
|
|
|
|
