The end of the internet?
- Thread starter Jike Ichi
- Start date
swordtrainer
New member
How did you even find that?
Shawn R. L.
New member
Rim shot.........
@jahminis:
Guess were I found the first end! As you said I was wanderin drunk down the internet to the freak bar :drunk:
But then listening to the noise inside the bar I was too afraid to enter. So I stumbled down the little alley behind the bar. And there it was! The end of the internet.
Which means: The freak bar is the last stop before the end of the internet!
@Pegazus: I\'m to curious to become very old, so what\'s a Pink Panda Phizz Cola?
Guess were I found the first end! As you said I was wanderin drunk down the internet to the freak bar :drunk:
But then listening to the noise inside the bar I was too afraid to enter. So I stumbled down the little alley behind the bar. And there it was! The end of the internet.
Which means: The freak bar is the last stop before the end of the internet!
@Pegazus: I\'m to curious to become very old, so what\'s a Pink Panda Phizz Cola?
No Such Agency
New member
Speaking at a Westminster eForum on Web 2.0 this week in London, Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T, warned that the current systems that constitute the Internet will not be able to cope with the increasing amounts of video and user-generated content being uploaded.
\"The surge in online content is at the center of the most dramatic changes affecting the Internet today,\" he said. \"In three years\' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today.\"
Why do I have a feeling they want the government to help make this \"investment\" in infrastructure, so that telecom companies can still claim they need to throttle bandwidth and restrict user activities, while still charging more for access? I say screw them, internet access could be nationalized and run \"at arm\'s length\" by the state the way national broadcasters like the CBC or BBC are. It couldn\'t possibly be worse than where it\'s already headed, which is the death of net neutrality (which is what I originally thought this topic was referring to).
\"The surge in online content is at the center of the most dramatic changes affecting the Internet today,\" he said. \"In three years\' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today.\"
Why do I have a feeling they want the government to help make this \"investment\" in infrastructure, so that telecom companies can still claim they need to throttle bandwidth and restrict user activities, while still charging more for access? I say screw them, internet access could be nationalized and run \"at arm\'s length\" by the state the way national broadcasters like the CBC or BBC are. It couldn\'t possibly be worse than where it\'s already headed, which is the death of net neutrality (which is what I originally thought this topic was referring to).
Sadly the BBC is one of the most patronising, blinkered and saddest broadcasting organisations.
When it does bother to rise above it\'s rigid 1950\'s socio/poloitical mindset it can be great, but otherwise its devolved into a media determined to pamper to the lowest common demoninator.
And for this we have to pay a license fee. Another rip off tax.
Another of my pet peeves. 
Infidel Castro
New member
Apart from BBC2, Radio 4 & 5 and the rugby coverage, the BBC is a bit wet. A shame really, as it has real potential.
generulpoleaxe
New member
the bbc is just a goverment backed manopoly.
if they didn\'t have that, they would sink as their monetary wastage takes the piss.
as for net neutrality, goverments will end up controling everything, as they use any excuse they can to remove more and more of peoples freedom.
christ, in the uk a lot of people are only one step away from being legalized slaves we have so few actual rights left.
if they didn\'t have that, they would sink as their monetary wastage takes the piss.
as for net neutrality, goverments will end up controling everything, as they use any excuse they can to remove more and more of peoples freedom.
christ, in the uk a lot of people are only one step away from being legalized slaves we have so few actual rights left.
Originally posted by Dragonsreach
Sadly the BBC is one of the most patronising, blinkered and saddest broadcasting organisations.
When it does bother to rise above it\'s rigid 1950\'s socio/poloitical mindset it can be great, but otherwise its devolved into a media determined to pamper to the lowest common demoninator.
And for this we have to pay a license fee. Another rip off tax.
tell me if i am wrong mike, but didnt the BBC have a show called topless darts?
my sister in law was telling me about since she lived there a few years ago.
but then again we brought you guys baywatch.
generulpoleaxe
New member
that wasn\'t the bbc mate, it was a small channel that sky used to broadcast.
i think it was called live tv but can\'t be sure.
i think it was called live tv but can\'t be sure.
No Such Agency
New member
But it\'s not merely an ideological mouthpiece for the current party in power, right? That\'d be the main worry if gov\'t provided internet access, is all.
Come on, that\'s a slight exaggeration... Not that I\'m really right-wing or anything, but I think this country is pretty good compared to a lot of the rest of the world. People here have plenty of rights.
Trouble is, people have the right and the freedom to be thick. Because the rich companies - the small percentage of people who own a large percentage of the wealth - use their products to brainwash the population, people are more interested in reality TV and hairstyles than their rights. Almost nobody uses their rights to change things in the country, as they could. All very convenient for the rich people (many of whom just happen to be politicians) who want the poor to stay poor...
