I wonder if turning off the Internet will start to be treated as a reliable predictor that the government is going to fall. So far it's a pretty good one.
I was thinking the same thing. So far this tactic has not worked well in the cases where it has been tried, the last gasp of a desperate autocrat.
On the other hand, banning the media has worked well in the past, such as when China ordered the media out of Tiananmen before getting serious at the end. The problem is that nowadays with cellphones and twitter, banning the media accomplishes nothing because that merely deputizes the entire populace to become journalists. At Tiananmen no one could post to the internet from their cell phone. Things have changed since then. Now the only way to stop the media is to shut down the internet, cell phones, and land lines that might contact fax machines. But this leaves the autocrat with no reliable feedback about what is going on on the ground, while people manage to communicate news reports via satellite phone, ham radio, pigeons, across the border local wifi, and who knows what else.
A big question is what will governments do in response to this loss of control, something they can not stand? Something like the great firewall of china is one solution - leave the internet running but have the ability to monitor 100% of net traffic in real time and block prohibited communication instantly. In the US there is an approach of monitoring traffic for keywords (but no blocking) combined with psyops such as persona management and media control in order to get the sheep to go in the direction the herder wants them to go.
Yes, it's much better to monitor and manipulate than it is to openly oppose the crowd. The general populace is often bigger than you are. Nowadays, they can coordinate and communicate.
If the Tiananmen protestors had waited until this moment in 2011 to protest, then you would have seen the fall of China. As it is, I suspect that the Chinese government was forced to wise up about controlling an Internet-connected populace.
As for psy-ops and media control, that's been going on since the late 19th century, and was down to a science by the early 20th.
The Japanese monarchy has gone through cycles of governance and non-governance, remember the shogunate? I have no reason to believe that it won't happen again 50, 100, or 200 years from now, without ever having broken the chain of succession.
The chain of succession has been broken a few times, most prominently by assassination, where the next candidate assuming the throne had, ahem, well, ample reasons to be glad they hadn't invented DNA testing yet. The unbroken succession is largely an article of faith, concocted in the late 1800s in the service of turning an often fractious bunch into a modern nation-state.
It's entirely possible. Most non-governing monarchies still have themselves inserted into a position of power and simply rubber stamp the actions of the governing bodies. In the UK the Queen (or future King) has the ability to Veto a piece of legislation. Similarly in Canada, Australia and New Zealand the Governor General holds the veto amongst the other reserve powers.
However, the Japanese Emperor has no 'reserve' powers. So its ability to take power may be more restricted, however there's always a good chance that they would be restored to power in the event of an uprising.
THATS NOT TRUE! were ahmericah! fuck yea! we aint got no monarchs! Our president does not have the power to send troops unofficially into other countries without declaring war or spread propaganda to change public opinion into supporting an invasion of a country.
Burma's internet use is almost non-existant. OpenNet Initiative says only 0.2% [1] out of population of 55M are internet users. I'd rather be making a comparison towards North Korea, than to Egypt, where 24.3% [2] of the population is using internet.
America has an open internet, and we're pretty awful at reform. Apples and oranges, though. We're replacing rotten floorboards and broken balcony rails; they're building a house up from rubble.
Renesys' always excellent coverage throws some more light. They say the routers are all still up, there haven't been any routes withdrawn, but packets are just stopping somewhere on the way into libya. Firewalled I'm guessing, so privileged parties can still communicate.
There is a way around it. Libyan activists, specially those in Tripoli are able to get the word out even if he powers down the whole country.
Fret not, all Gaddafi is doing is signal to those in areas under his control that he is losing control. Nothing could damage him now more than a mismanaged public image; that's why you see the cleaning crew sweeping streets and taking out garbage, to send strong signals of normalcy by attending to mundane chores. It's all poker bluffs; if a handful of generals understood he is out, and accepted it, he will be out.
Imagine the increase in development speed of projects that aim to create a true decentralized internet, if the bill passes. The killswitch might not be so bad after all.
What does "true decentralized internet" mean to you? Surely if you want to communicate with people around the world, you need to rely on someone to transport the data for you across the country and the oceans. If not government, then who? Why would you trust them more?
Unless they are going to put FIDOnet back online (or is it still around?) you need a backbone for the internet, which means governments can always control and close it at will.
The mere fact the US is pursuing such an option is a demonstration of bad government that threatens and controls it's people with FUD.
That link says 13% of the world's tantalum comes from the Congo, meaning a lot of it doesn't come from there ("Congolese coltan is globally speaking only a minor source of tantalum"). 100% of the world's .ly domain supply comes from Libya.
WP also mentions that Sony, for instance, stopped sourcing tantalum from the Congo. On the other hand, WP says Sony's claim is "inconceivable", citing a web page that no longer exists.
Libya are the bad guys this week. We were dealing with Libya in the Billions based on that article. Suddenly $75.00 for a domain name has become a moral hazard.
It's a full on delusional platitude to discount dealings with brutal or dictatorial countries.
You seem to imply there should be consideration in who we deal with based on the political conditions which is actually not even feasible at this point. Libya just happens to be the topic of the day so it's easy to look at the .ly and say "Well that's what you get."
I type this on a keyboard made in Thailand, My monitors are made in China, as is my Cisco desk phone and Droid X. So is my coffee mug.
Surprisingly, my coffee cup by International Paper is Made in the USA. That's the only thing on my desk
Difficult != impossible. I'm certainly not one of them, but there are people out there who actually do carefully consider where and how the things they use are made. It's pretty lame to call someone who actually tries to take responsibility for him/herself as a consumer delusional.
The weak point in your assertion is that you ignore the fungibility of those items. Keyboards, monitors, desk phones, etc. are all fungible to a certain degree.
Domains ending in .ly are not fungible. You can only buy a .ly domain an organization managing them for Libya. Furthermore, this isn't $10/year like many domains, but rather $75/year.
Domains are easy for you to harp on because you have nothing invested in it and any claims you make do not actually apply to you. You'll happily fund places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and China because it's hard to avoid, but then come and post an effort-free comment about how someone else should act differently.
I don't believe it's a weak point at all. I think you're creating a demarcation to eliminate the cognitive dissonance in asking someone else to expend effort while expending none yourself.
Yes, cell phones are fungible, but my Droid X is not. Yes, keyboard are fungible but I can't get Dell to ship a differently branded keyboard.
Uh, no. Don't even think about getting into a "you don't do this" argument with me, because I have a list of exactly where most my spending goes, and I spent a year living in the desert on sustainable goods, don't own a smart phone, have bought everything I own at Goodwill, don't own a car, and work at Kiva.
I know that might blow away your preconceptions, but think twice before harping on people that you don't know anything about. You are not a special piece of sunshine. The difference is I'm not going around like you trying to pretend like I am better than someone else, rather explaining the objective facts of the situation.
Uh, no. Don't even think about getting into a "you don't do this" argument with me, because I have a list of exactly where most my spending goes, and I spent a year living in the desert on sustainable goods, don't own a smart phone, have bought everything I own at Goodwill, don't own a car, and work at Kiva.
Ok, lets address the holier than thou argument which is exactly what I'm talking about. You live in a city, have a featureless phone (still made in China no doubt! Maybe a Nokia?), played camper in the desert for a year (Sustainable as long as everyone else stays away!), buy up the affordable clothing that poor people could use, and work for a place that causes suicide thanks to usurious interest rates. That about sum it up? You going to brag about not owning a TV as well?
Seriously though, I'm pretty sure my comment got the point across that I don't think I'm better than anyone else specifically because I don't give a crap about buying a shiny device from China, or paying Dell for a keyboard from Thailand. And that's why I find effort-free comments taking a moral high ground to be pointless.
edit: I want to say I think Kiva is a great company implementing a great idea. I am only knocking it to say that the moral high ground is not defensible. It's always easy to spit downhill, but someone else can always spit on you. I certainly take no issue with nowarninglabel personally. Living in the desert sounds fun and educational. I just don't think there is a point where suddenly you reach a point that you can say someone else's dealings with a bad country is over the line while still claiming you're only dealing with a necessary evil. It takes the collective action of a government to actually effect change, such as NK or Cuba, and even then not so much.
Free markets has done more for a free China than politics ever could.
Sorry, I did not realize you are just a troll. Here though for anyone else's reference, you know those that actually like to go research instead of just spouting off.
I worked in the desert through Student Conservation Corps in their Desert Restoration Corps, working on saving the desert tortoise among other things. I didn't go there to commune with nature. http://www.thesca.org/
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in terms of Goodwill either. Goodwill provides jobs for those who otherwise could not get them specifically by selling clothes that would otherwise end up in landfills. http://eartheasy.com/blog/2010/05/lets-keep-clothing-out-of-...
Finally, saying Kiva causes suicide is plain false. This would be akin to saying that Apple causes suicide because someone's World of Warcraft account got cut off so they killed themselves. It's so much apples and oranges that it begs the question if you researched anything at all before making that statement. Just to reiterate, no one involved in Kiva loans has committed suicide, I'm guessing you grabbed some random article about microfinance and then associated the two with absolutely no diligence at all. Don't take my word for it, go inform yourself: http://ask.metafilter.com/125386/Help-me-avoid-being-a-loan-... or from a Fellow http://fellowsblog.kiva.org/2010/01/07/bad-roads-interest-ra... or straight from Kiva http://www.kiva.org/updates/kiva/2010/04/15/new-york-times-a...
And no, your comment does not get any point across other than to say that you like to make flippant comments without any objective facts, the very thing you supposedly argue against. If you had done even 10 minutes of research on anything you just spouted off about you would have realized you made absolutely no sense.
Understood. I just had no idea that people were taking their lives because of an inability to repay microfinance loans in general. I'm an active Kiva participant with a few thousand USD in the system at present.
Cool, I'm also a lender with some thousands in. Over-indebtedness is actually a topic we discuss nearly every other day there, though I'm over in engineering so not as involved, but it's apparent they are going to extra efforts to ensure borrowers are not over indebted.
That seems like a situation that is more directly influenced by the country-specific lending institutions, no? Aren't they the ones setting the interest rates, repayment terms, etc., not Kiva and other ML organisations?
Yes, but Kiva has very high level control over two factors
1) Who they lend with
2) Whether or not to continue lending with them.
All the partnerships with these MFIs has a clause in the contract where Kiva can pull out at any time if it finds the MFI is engaging in questionable practices.
They also do a surprising amount of research on which MFIs they work with. If the MFI doesn't pass a social impact assessment, then they don't make it past there.
I actually think Kiva does a better job of investigating MFIs than most VCs/angels do when investing in startups. It would make for a great blog post if I was able to divulge all the details :-/
My guess is yes. It's a Topre Realforce keyboard; they have a proprietary keyswitch design that they make themselves, and the emphasis is on quality. I bet the microcontroller is mass-produced in China though.
I don't really care; I avoid China for quality reasons, not for political reasons. I find that companies that manufacture their goods themselves in their own country tend to produce better products than companies that outsource the manufacturing to the lowest bidder in China. It is about cost and control; if you're willing to spend more and manage your own factories, your products are going to be better.
This is not an absolute; obviously some companies do OK with China, like Apple and Dell and Lenovo.
Each "brutal dictatorship" is going to have their own nuances and idiosyncrasies but throwing down a blanket "don't deal with them" is flat out pointless.
We deal with nasty governments on a daily basis. From the gas we put in our cars to our phones to the clothes on our backs to our coffee mugs (but not coffee cups!) on our desks.
Then maybe people would think twice before doing business with brutal dictatorships in the future.
I think sentiments like the above are just dull feel good platitudes that don't address reality. It's a statement that is easy for others to agree with yet doesn't really confer a coherent idea or commitment.
I have to answer to this comment since this is the same argument governments had back in social and communist countries in Eastern Europe.
It is not about whether majority of people approve government or think their government is a "brutal dictatorship". It is about what that government does with people who doesn't approve the government.
And I've never spoken with a Libyan, Iranian, Cuban, Venezuelan or Belorussian. I'm also not chastising someone else for dealing with any of those countries. In fact, I'm saying the opposite.
Even if I view another country in a negative light I don't see a way I can rationalize telling bit.ly they've made a bad decision, or Boeing they made a mistake with the Dreamliner, or my neighbor he's wrong for buying fuel from a Citgo station.
Throwaway comments about taking a moral high ground are just that. And as bit.ly has not gone down, I don't see how there is a practical issue either.
Actually no - the RIGHT kind of business is good - as it means a middle class is created in those countries - and well, we can see the results. The right kind of business is in consumer goods - it's hard to have low aspirations when you are making iPhones or part of a call center helping solve first world problems.
North Korea has no trade to speak of - and no hope that its population will assert itself.
$ host -t NS ly.
ly name server phloem.uoregon.edu.
ly name server ns-ly.ripe.net.
ly name server dns1.lttnet.net.
ly name server dns.lttnet.net.
ly name server auth02.ns.uu.net.
I suppose that traffic is under very close scrutiny by foreign intelligence services. It likely belongs to the regime, or close privileged persons that are not kicked off for some reason.
