Posted January 28, 200817 yr Hey guys, could someone please tell me how to not be muted in counter strike source?:hahano:
January 28, 200817 yr Its pretty simple actually......... They see a problem with freeloaders. On the tall end of the power curve, those 'loaders are AOL, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other large sources of the container cargo we call "content". Out on the long tail, the freeloaders are you and me. The big 'loaders have been getting a free ride for too long and are going to need to pay. The Information Highway isn't the freaking interstate. It's a system of private roads that needs to start charging tolls. As for the small 'loaders, it hardly matters that they're a boundless source of invention, innovation, vitality and new business. To the carriers, we're all still just "consumers". And we always will be. The carriers have been lobbying Congress for control of the Net since Bush the Elder was in office. Once they get what they want, they'll put up the toll booths, the truck scales, the customs checkpoints--all in a fresh new regulatory environment that formalizes the container cargo business we call packet transport. This new environment will be built to benefit the carriers and nobody else. The "consumers"? Oh ya, sure: they'll benefit too, by having "access" to all the good things that carriers ship them from content providers. Is there anything else? No. Crocodile grins began to grow on the faces of carriers as soon as it became clear that everything we call "media" eventually would flow through their pipes. All that stuff we used to call TV, radio, newspapers and magazines will just be "content" moving through the transport layer of the pipe system they own and control. Think it's a cool thing that TV channels are going away? So do the carriers. The future à lá carte business of media will depend on one medium alone: the Net. And the Net is going to be theirs. The Net's genie, which granted all those e-commerce wishes over the past ten years, won't just get shoved back in the bottle. No, that genie will be piped and priced by the packet. The owners of those pipes have a duty to their stockholders to make the most of the privileged position they've been waiting to claim ever since they got blind-sided, back in the 80s and 90s. (For an excellent history of how the European PTTs got snookered by the Net and the Web, see Paul F. Kunz' Bringing the World Wide Web to America.) They have assets to leverage, dammit, and now they can. Thus, the Era of Net Facilitation will end. The choke points are in the pipes, the permission is coming from the lawmakers and regulators, and the choking will be done. No more free rides, folks. Time to pay. It's called creating scarcity and charging for it. The Information Age may be here, but the Industrial Age is hardly over. The carriers are going to lobby for the laws and regulations they need, and they're going to do the deals they need to do. The new system will be theirs, not ours. The NEA principle--Nobody owns it, Everybody can use it, Anybody can improve it--so familiar to the Free Software and Open Source communities will prove to be a temporary ideal, a geek conceit. Code is not Law. Culture is not Free. From the Big Boys' perspective, code and culture are stuff nobody cares about. One reason transport trumps place is that business itself is largely, though not entirely, conceived in shipping terms. The "value chain" is a transportational notion. We speak of "loading" goods into "channels" for "distribution" to "end users" or "consumers". We even talk about "delivering" services. On the other hand, we have understood markets as places since marketplaces were the only kinds of markets we had. The metaphors that come naturally to Wall Street are helpful here. When we speak of "bulls", "bears" and "invisible hands", we assume those beings operate in an place-like environment. When we say markets have feelings--"excitement", "fear", "anticipation", "reaction"--we assume those happen in an environment (that is, a place) as well. Even "Wall Street" is ontologically locational. It is a real place that serves, by what cognitive linguistics call metonymy, for the whole stock market, which we also conceive of as a place. If they get away with it in America, dont think you'll be safe in Europe or China. Money and greed have no political or geographical boundries. And Globalization with corporations is happening whether you like it or not. How really far off is a Robocop type world where a few large corporations control everything, including the Internet and your access to it. It's just to complicated for the average citizen [American] to grasp and most simply do not care if it isnt directly interfering with the usual trip to the mall or coffehouse. As a tech I can tell you 90% of my friends and customers do not even really know what the Net is: or care. They will simply eat whatever they're fed as long as it looks nice on the outside and smells good. They will not notice or even care if it's different on the inside. And we the people who care about keeping The Net True are too few in numbers and resources. Like really, when WAS the last time you schmoozed your money grubbing local politician with a free lunch or box seats at the B-Ball game ? We've already been sold out. We will simply need to build another net. And I'm sure if we are not careful it may become illegal to even do that; imagine. It would be easy to bog down starting any type of New Internet infrastructure with rules and regulations that only those with deep pockets can abide by. Or worst yet taxing the broadband 802.11 wireless spectrum and forcing anyone who uses it to identify themselves with a callsign that must be registered which in turn will allow your bandwidth usage to be monitored, controlled and taxed. Anyone then transmitting on these frequencies without paying taxes and the proper ID can be considered criminals: thats you and me. You'll have people like meter maids driving around with rf sniffers looking for Airwave thieves. The subject of my comment says it all. We have no chance of winning. We the people that is- the people who feed the fat mouths of the fat businesses who bully us to feed them more. We the little people compared to the "big people" of the big businesses who run not only the US, but the world. The funny thing is that we the people, or most of them that is, let it happen. We are still letting it happen today. Don't like your isp? Then go WiFi. Don't have WiFi access, then make one. But it sure as hell won't be cheap. The problem with the companies today (Sony, biggest example) is that they treat us worse than dog crap. They treat us like criminals when we are the ones who bought/buy thier products-in our own damn country. These companies are going to a far reach to be able to tell us we can't download this, access this, or view that. F*** them, I say. I pay good money to connect to this internet that is maintained (the place, not the pipes) by the people. (Now going to talk about piracy) The companies such as the RIAA and MPAA shouldn't fight the people who are "stealing" "thier" content. I think they should embrace it. So what if they lose a couple of pennies out of thier fat The problem is the big companies who are sitting in thier 42 room houses smoking pipes and sipping on $300 wine think that the American and world "consumers" are nothing but idiots who can't even live without the microwave or television. That's why they can't win in this way. We the people are too smart and can figure a way around the DRM, flags, and etc. It may take a year, it may take ten, or even a hundred years for us to find an alternative to the internet where it may be a free place to share ideas and information, and be free from the communications market. And possibly free. The companies who think that the American society is made up of degenerates and losers are the ones who will eventually lose. The modern computers were made by geeks and nerds still in school. Not some fancy technicians who were paid big bucks to be able to throw together a hard drive, a processer, a motherboard and a cooling unit all in a bright excessed case. How does this relate to the whole pipes deal? It relates to it in a similar way. What the global consumers don't realize is that the telecommunication industry isn't that smart. If you were to ever watch "The History of Hacking", it shows the original Captain Crunch and Steve Wozniak(co-founder of Apple) who "hacked" the phone systems with a little box that made dial noises to be able to get free calls to anywhere in the world. That wasn't long ago. The communication industry didn't just jump off it's butt and get smart with technology. The smartist thing in the world is the human brain, not the computer, not a machine, and not pipes assigned by a big company. You have to be smarter than the object you are using. I know there are brains out there who can make a free alternative to the internet in very little time. Its all will power and the ability to pry yourself from a computer screen and the television. Sure the future internet may not be completely free, it shouldn't be. As long as its free from wires and out of the greedy business leader's hands, and into the public's then thats alright with me. It shouldn't be free, but it shouldn't cost you a half of your check a month. This is so because it costs money to run a WiFi station. It needs to be maintained by people. I can tell you right now that something such as WiFi can be much cheaper than installing wires and pipes into each individual household-as long as it has a stable and distant signal. All of that is for the future, but right now we the people are losing a battle on our own turf. The sad part is we are helping them and not ourselves. If you want to help feed this albatross of an industry, then thats your choice, but I myself would love to see something that evey person on the earth deserves- freedom of speech and free of charge from it. AND THATS HOW YOU CAN AVOID BEING MUTED
January 28, 200817 yr Well let me explain something to you. There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right. But this service is now going to go through the internet and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free. Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet? I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially. So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes. We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people. The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material. Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that? Do you know why? Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people. Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves. Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day. It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families. The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a viloation of net neutraility that hits you and me. Does that help your problem?
January 28, 200817 yr Erlan Idrissov is a dour-looking fellow. At first glance, he could be mistaken for a Soviet-era apparatchik, which he once was. But all of that disguises a rich, wicked sense of humor that is omnipresent - except when he is asked why his country remains a repressive autocracy. Idrissov is the Kazakh ambassador to Washington. His job, it seems, is a constant struggle to focus attention on Kazakhstan's many accomplishments - while fending off the continuing caterwaul about the nation's failure to democratize. All this came to a head last month when, after years of debate, Kazakhstan was chosen to lead an important European agency involved primarily in democracy promotion - even though Kazakhstan has repeatedly violated or ignored the agency's guidelines and rules. At this point comes the question: Why should we care? What's so important about the form of government in still-another former Soviet republic in Central Asia? The answer: Kazakhstan has 9 billion barrels in proven oil reserves, slightly less than Mexico's. It also has one of the world's largest natural-gas fields, 1.77 trillion cubic meters - more, even than Kuwait. With all this oil and gas, over the last 15 years, Kazakhstan, a nation as large as Western Europe, has grown from an impoverished backwater to a developing but prosperous and important country. Flush with money and hubris, Kazakhstan began lobbying several years ago to take the one-year rotating chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in 2009. The OSCE, as it is known, is a 55-nation group based in Vienna that mediates disputes, promotes democracy and human rights - and serves as the official monitor for elections in scores of nations, including Kazakhstan. The OSCE has never found a Kazakh election to be free or fair. The United States and some European nations asked the obvious question: How on Earth can a nation that has an abysmal record on the very issues the OSCE promotes credibly be considered for even a rotating chairmanship? Nursultan Nazarbayev, the Kazakh president, announced his country's intention to compete for the chairmanship in August 2005. Two months later, as it happened, I visited his palace, traveling in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's press corps. Coming from the airport, we drove through Astana, the new Kazakh capital - a shimmering collection of brand-new monumental buildings - pyramids, towers and a terraced pavilion modeled on nothing less than the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. A Kazakh press aide, riding with us in the car, swept her hand toward the city and in an admiring voice explained. "Our president sees great buildings in other countries, and he brings them here for us." Nazarbayev has been president since the Soviet Union installed him in 1989. We met with the president in his palace, a vast marble edifice with a city-block-size lobby. At a news conference, one of my ill-mannered colleagues asked the president, "What evidence is there that you are anything more than a dictator?" Nazarbayev looked ashen. He sputtered something about how the questioner was serving the opposition. Later, a presidential aide said Nazarbayev had been "humiliated." With Kazakhstan's proposed turn as chairman four years off, OSCE members waited to see if Nazarbayev would introduce democratic reforms. Quite the opposite occurred. Several American organizations involved in democracy promotion were harassed or expelled. Two leading opposition leaders were assassinated. Last spring, Nazarbayev's signed a constitutional amendment that exempts him from term limits, effectively allowing him to remain president for life. Then in August, Kazakhstan held parliamentary elections. And, wouldn't you know it, Nazarbayev's political party won every single seat. Kimmo Kiljunen, a member of the Finnish parliament and an OSCE election observer, remarked: "I am personally disappointed that there is a backsliding in the election process." These are the unfortunate facts Ambassador Idrissov must address when he makes public appearances. "Democracy is a culture of habit," he explained last week, speaking in San Francisco. "We have to develop these habits in our own blood. We don't want to rush these things." Testifying before Congress last fall, Idrissov said bringing democracy to Kazakhstan was like "bringing up a child. We are having teething problems." Undoubtedly, the OSCE worried about alienating a major oil-producing state when it voted to give Kazakhstan the chair in 2010. The organization put off Kazakhstan's chairmanship two years with the hope, once again, that the country would democratize in the meantime. But Kazakhstan seems to favor a longer timeline. "We very often are being criticized for being slow to promote democratic reforms," Idrissov acknowledged. "We sometimes do not understand what slow means."
January 28, 200817 yr Methodize;542138']erm try not talking on the mic. That should solve your problem or play in the new zombie mod where only admin can mute you. the personal mute is broken so hope there isnt admin if ur raging
