Slashdot Mirror
International Internet Infrastructure Triples
bda writes: "TeleGeography has just published this year's statistics for international Internet infrastructure growth, aka how much capacity goes where. Worldwide, Internet bandwidth nearly tripled (174 percent growth), but behind it are some pretty big differences -- growth ranged from 90 percent (less than doubling) for Africa to 479 percent (almost sextupling) for Latin America. City-wise, the top interregional hubs connecting between continents were New York, London, Amsterdam, Paris, SF, Tokyo, Washington DC, Miami, Los Angeles, Copenhagen, in that order. So the Internet is still fairly U.S.-centric ... but still becoming less so. Asia-Pac's ratio of out-of-region to in-region international capacity went from 7:1 to 4:1; Lat Am's from 36:1 to 7:1. The most obvious factor in long-haul Internet bandwidth growth seems to be whether or not someone has plunged ahead and laid dark fiber. When we looked at trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific capacity, Internet capacity stayed pretty constant at 10 percent of what was theoretically possible over lit fiber." You can read the executive summary (pdf), or you can (gulp) pay $1,995 for the whole thing. That would work out to about 50 copies of the Atlas of Cyberspace.
fuck all ACs ever
Lives! Despite the rumors.
The WTC was attacked by the most vile and evil of all races. THE JEWS!
The Zionist conspiracy wants America and Islam to destroy each other then they can control the world!!!
4000 Jews were told to stay home Sept. 11!!!!!
See truth here
That "Atlas of Cyberspace" link leads to Slashdot. Isn't that a bit presumptious? ;)
Got Rhinos?
Are there any connections in the Mideast? How many a year from now?
Iraq has Internet, but only for the military. It is illegal to even own a modem in Iraq. Faxes, copiers, typewriters, etc. have to be registered. Satellite dishes are banned, although people do assemble and camouflage them. Foreign magazines coming into the country are censored, often arriving with certain pages torn out. The government keeps very tight control of any news coming into the country. The internet would be harder to control, so it is banned. Saddam recently declared that the internet is a sinister tool used by governments for brainwashing people and spreading pornography.
Nizar Hamdoun, Iraq's retiring UN ambassador, in a recent interview, said that when he returns to Iraq, he will try to open internet access to the country. He thinks the internet is very useful, and would like Iraqi kids to enjoy the benefits. Hamdoun designed the Iraqi UN mission's web site.
Iraq has international telephone access, which is also often monitored. The network was targeted and damaged during the Gulf War and the recent bombing. So service is sporadic.
I would like to see the comparative growth on the bandwith of 3rd world countries. I think it was static and most of the growth are enjoyed by more developed countries. Unfortunately the exec summary doesn't reveal all these stuffs so that the whole world may see how huge is the gap between them...
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
I want to know if all this extra bandwidthis being paid for or whether internationally the cost of internet bandwidth is dropping. Here in australia with the internet backbone provided by only to main companies we are still charged fairly restrictive bandwidth prices.
I currently have a permament 28.8kbs connection charged at AU18c a Mb. With the advent of a PPPoE switched network in our city it was meant to herald a new age of connectivity with streaming movies and megabandwidth available. Shure it may be available but they are charging pretty similar rates per meg to my current modem connection. Meaning I could run up a AU$500 bill in a matter of minutes downloading the debian iso's for example.
Shouldn't the increse of available bandwidth decrease the cost to the consumers?
The main things one gets from this are:
1. Europe is growing rapidly, but not pulling Africa along with it.
2. Asia/Pacific is moving from a US-centric model to a Pacific model centered in Japan and Australia.
Both of these are fairly good things for the Net, and the first has positive implications for Privacy rights and where the Net will change, as the US fails to take the lead on things such as opt-in email requirements and consumer privacy, but the EU provides and enforces them. This will be the major battle of the zeros decade, as well as the transparency and ubiquity of the Net in most European countries and their direct colonies.
The breakdown of the US-centric Pacific/Asian model is probably good, as it was a bad fit before, but has negative implications for Privacy and also for Piracy. However, it may lead to increased growth of open source computing, as these regions deal with both growth and a downturn in economic fortunes. The need for servers and Net components will increase, but pressure to drop prices will most certainly kill MSFT control of this area, which will help force open source into most transparent background Net technology.
Cool!
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Does this mean all those people layed off at Nortel might get their jobs back??? I thought that the companies weren't laying fiber anymore (or at least greatly reduced the amount they are laying)... Did I miss something, or are backbones linked via some medium other than fiber?
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
...son's of bitch's..... look at the New York bandwidth on the executive pdf... thats INSANE compared to everything else. I sure am glad I'm in the US... cept for Europe and Japan, seems nobody else has a nice connection :)
That post deserves an award for the longest single post contributed by a user, ever.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
That's because the story took a minute to update after I inserted the link to that story, and it looks like he saw the unfilled link, rather than the filled one, and it really would have just pointed to Slashdot. :)
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
The fact that the infrastructure has gotten so big and so few of the truly UN-connected (i.e. non western countries, disadvantaged schools) have gotten connected in the meantime makes me relegate this infrastructure expansion to the trash bin with the dutch tulip craze.
An investment craze, a gold rush, call it whatever you want. What it means is that people have expanded infrastructure in a way that does not prove sustainable in the long run because it doesn't reach everybody.
Cars have penetrated nearly everywhere. Even cities whejre most people don't have cars gain benefits from cars and a car infrastructure. The same thing cannot be said for the Internet infrastructure.
Until the Bruce Sterling world exists and we have a self maintained system of multiple Nets and self-made, semi disposable computers for nearly everybody (including the poor and nomadic people in the world), then we won't have a useful Internet that will last beyond its gold rush period.
It has to become like the car. People said the car wouldn't penetrate certain levels of society either you know.
Goat sex free since 2001
With the end of the year at hand this seems like a good time to sum things up. Before we sum up the past year, though, let's look at the past century. The salient feature of the 20th century was the collective suicide of the White race. In 1900 we ruled the world. We ruled politically, militarily, culturally, economically, scientifically, and in every other way. No other race even came close. We ruled India and Africa directly, and China was for all practical purposes an economic colony of Europe and America. The Chinese Emperor remained on his throne only so long as he let White men have their way in China. Japan was the only non-White nation of any significance that even had pretensions of autonomy.
We had superior weapons, superior armed forces, superior communications, superior transportation, superior agriculture and industry, superior standards of health, superior organization, superiority in every facet of science and technology. We had the best universities -- really, the only universities worthy of the name -- the best engineers. We built things that other races couldn't even imagine. We explored, we conquered, we ruled.
More important than anything else was our moral superiority -- and please don't misunderstand my use of that term. I don't mean that we were meek and inoffensive and turned the other cheek. I mean that we were proud and self-confident. We knew who we were, and we knew that we were far, far better than anyone else, and we weren't at all embarrassed by the fact that we were better. We recognized racial differences in the same way we recognized that the sun rises in the east, and we felt not the slightest need to apologize to anyone for that. Egalitarianism was a moral and mental disease that afflicted only a few of our people, despite the murderous outburst of egalitarian insanity that was the French Revolution a century earlier. Any sort of racial mixing was abhorrent to us. We looked on miscegenation with the same disgust and disapproval as on bestiality or necrophilia. We didn't tolerate it. And we didn't accept or trust Jews. That was our situation a century ago.
We did have some faults, however: some very serious faults. We were not vigilant. We were so confident in our superiority that we failed to heed the warnings of the few among us who were vigilant. We didn't pay attention when a few warned us, "Hey, we'd better do something about the race problem. We have nine million non-Whites in the United States, according to the 1900 census, and in the future they could become a real problem for us. Let's start getting rid of them now."
We thought, "Well, as long as they stay on their side of town and stay out of sight, how can they be a problem for us? Besides, they're useful for picking cotton and as cleaning women and cooks and gardeners."
And when a few warned us about the Jews we also didn't pay attention. A few warned us about the damage the Jews had done to us in the past, about their malevolence, about their growing wealth, but most of us didn't take the warnings seriously. We saw the Jews as obnoxious and unpleasant people, and we didn't let them into our private clubs and our better hotels, but we didn't consider them really dangerous. We didn't even become alarmed when they began buying up our newspapers and elbowing their way into other propaganda media.
And lack of vigilance wasn't our only fault. We were too ready to quarrel with one another. No other race was seen as a threat to ours, so we felt no need to suppress our internal rivalries and jealousies and hatreds and form a solid front against the non-White world. We let fester old rivalries between the English and the Germans and between the Germans and the French and between the English and the Boers in South Africa and between those of us who spoke Germanic languages and those of us who spoke Slavic or Romance languages. We didn't notice our faults, our weaknesses -- but others did.
The latter half of the 19th century saw not only the beginning of the acquisition of our mass media by the Jews, but also the nearly simultaneous hatching of two long-term, murderous conspiracies designed to exploit our weaknesses and turn them against us. These two conspiracies were Zionism and Marxism. Some Jews went with one, some with the other, but both were deadly for us.
The Marxists issued their Communist Manifesto as far back as the middle of the 19th century, but it was another 50 years before they were able to have much of an impact on the Gentile world. As for the Zionists, they also began propagandizing and organizing about the middle of the 19th century and only became noticeable at the beginning of the 20th century, when they began having international Zionist congresses and more or less openly laying their plans to foment wars and revolutions, of which they could take advantage to promote Jewish interests.
For example, at the Zionist Congress in 1897, in Basel, Switzerland, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl told his fellow Jews that they were having trouble persuading the Turks, who at that time controlled Palestine, to turn the country over to them, but that the Jewish leaders had plans for getting around the Turks. And I should mention that Herzl's address to the 1897 Zionist Congress has been published in a number of places, and any diligent researcher can dig up a copy. Herzl said:
"It may be that Turkey will refuse us or will be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now a question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. . . . The great European war must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the peace conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time."
Remember, Herzl was talking about the Jews' plans 17 years before the outbreak of the First World War. But the Jews were ready when the time came. In 1916, with the war more or less stalemated, they approached Britain's political leaders and made a deal to bring the United States into the war on the side of Britain in return for a British promise to take Palestine away from Turkey and turn it over to the Jews after the war. The British side of the deal was made public in the so-called Balfour Declaration. And the Zionists kept their end of the bargain by working through Jews close to the Democratic President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had won the election to his second term in the White House in 1916 by promising America's voters that he would keep the United States out of the European war. But as soon as he took office in 1917 he began scheming to get the country into the war on the side of Britain, which, of course, he did two months later. That cost a couple of million additional Gentile lives, but it got Palestine for the Jews -- and it also prolonged the war enough for the Jews in Russia to topple the czar and get their communist revolution off the ground.
When I said that some Jews took the Marxist route and some the Zionist route, I didn't mean that all Jews became active workers in one or the other of those movements. Most Jews remained full-time money-grubbers and provided propaganda and financial support for their conspiratorial brethren, continuing to buy up mass media and to dispense capital to the Zionists or the communists as needed. And they didn't wait for the First World War for that. The first big Gentile bloodletting of the last century in which they had a hand was the Boer War in South Africa, between the British and the Boers. This cruel and murderous war, in which Jewish capitalists were allied with British capitalists against South Africa's Dutch and German and French farmers -- the Boers -- laid the foundations for Jewish control of much of Africa's mineral wealth.
In 1904 the Jewish Wall Street speculator Jacob Schiff, planning ahead for a communist takeover of Russia, helped to finance the Japanese side in the Russian-Japanese war and used his influence to block loans to the Czar's government from America. This was the same Jacob Schiff who a little more than a decade later provided the Jewish-Bolshevik movement with an infusion of $25 million to finish the job in Russia: that's $25 million from capitalist Wall Street to finance the communist butchery of Gentile Russians. In 1917 $25 million was a lot of money; in any case it bought enough bombs and bullets and communist propaganda leaflets to get the job done.
Now, none of this Jewish activity was really secret. The lemmings didn't know about it, because it wasn't in the funny papers or the movies. But Jews weren't even trying to keep their sympathies or their activities secret, and observant Gentiles continued to issue warnings to anyone who would listen. But, as I said a moment ago, we weren't vigilant. White Americans didn't believe that they were in any danger. Things such as the deal to bring America into the First World War in return for the turning of Palestine over to the Jews were too subtle for the American mind.
After the war the mass murder of Ukrainians and Russians by Jewish-Bolshevik commissars might possibly have registered with White Americans, except that the average White American didn't think of Russians and Ukrainians as real people: they spoke a different language and dressed differently from us. And besides, by that time the Jews had gotten a pretty good grip on Hollywood and the broadcasting industry, and so the only side of the story that most Americans were allowed to see or hear was the Jewish side.
Europeans were more vigilant than Americans. For one thing Europeans had longer memories: they were more aware of the long history of Jewish scheming and predation than Americans were. For another thing, in Europe the danger was quite a bit closer. Communist parties in a number of European countries besides Russia had taken advantage of the chaos in the wake of the war to make grabs for power, and in a few countries -- Hungary, for example -- they succeeded temporarily. People noticed the ethnicity of the commissars and were horrified by their behavior toward the Gentile populations. Even in insular Britain no less a public figure than Winston Churchill spoke out clearly about the danger of Jewish communism. In a full-page feature article in the February 8, 1920, issue of London's Illustrated Sunday Herald, Churchill wrote:
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weisshaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Rosa Luxembourg in Germany, and Emma Goldman in the United States, this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality has been steadily growing. It played . . . a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky or of Zinovieff . . . or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing."
Actually, Churchill said quite a bit more in this article about the dangers of allowing Jewish communism to go unchecked, and if you really want to make a study of the background of our present mess you should read the entire article yourself. That's the February 8, 1920, issue of the Illustrated Sunday Herald. If you can't find it yourself in a large research library, the entire article is photographically reproduced in the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid, which is available from National Vanguard Books, the sponsor of this program. And when you do find the article from which I just read -- a major article written by one of the most prominent personalities of the last century and published in a major British newspaper -- you might ask yourself why you had never heard of it before I called it to your attention.
As I said, we lacked vigilance. A few people paid attention -- America's pioneer automaker Henry Ford, for example -- but most White Americans were too busy with their ball games and funny papers. And we didn't really care about what the Jews were doing to White people overseas, since they weren't Americans. About the only people who really paid attention were the Germans, who resolved not to let the Jews do to them what they had done to the Russians and had tried to do to the Hungarians. So they proceeded to get Rosa Luxembourg and her pals off their backs and out of Germany. And when the Germans did that, the Jews in America began screaming bloody murder and calling for another world war to save them from the Germans. And by this time the Jews had almost a monopoly on getting their side of the story to the American public.
Well, our people had one other fault in addition to an inadequate sense of racial solidarity with other Whites around the world and a lack of vigilance: we also lacked responsible leadership. We lacked even a system for giving us responsible leadership. What we had were politicians: skilled liars -- actors, lawyers -- who never asked themselves, "What policy is good for our people?" but only, "How can I get elected? What must I promise the people in order to get their votes? What policy will make me popular?" And as the grip of the Jews on the mass media, on Hollywood and Madison Avenue -- and therefore on the minds of the public -- became more and more nearly complete throughout the last century, the question the politicians asked themselves became, more and more: "What must I do to please the Jews and gain their support?"
And so in 1933, in the same year that a German government took office with a policy of freeing the German people from the grip of the Jews, in America a government took office with a policy of doing whatever the Jews wanted done. Franklin Roosevelt surrounded himself with more Jews than any previous American President. In this regard he was the Bill Clinton of his day.
Using Roosevelt as their willing tool, the Jews pulled the same sort of bait-and-switch trick on the American people to get us into the Second World War that they had pulled using Woodrow Wilson to get us into the First World War. Just as Wilson had done 24 years earlier, Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1940 on a campaign promise to keep the United States out of the war in Europe, and while he was making that promise to the American people he was actively scheming with his Jewish advisors and supporters to get the United States into the war as soon as he could, and meanwhile to keep the war in Europe going by making promises of support to those countries opposed to Germany.
It was fighting on the wrong side of that war, more than anything else, that laid us low. It also destroyed the British Empire and laid Britain low. Throughout the non-White world Whites began abdicating their rule, withdrawing, apologizing. The disease of egalitarianism spread like wildfire. There was a moral collapse throughout the White world. It wasn't just the German people who lost the Second World War; it was all Europeans, all White people, including European-Americans.
The Jews were the only real winners. The First World War resulted in opening up Palestine for their Zionist faction and delivering Russia to their communist faction. The Second World War not only saved them from getting booted out of Europe by Hitler, it delivered all of eastern and much of central Europe to their communist faction and finished delivering Palestine to their Zionist faction. The war cost them a million or so of the less-nimble Jews in Europe, but it gave them the basis for their enormously profitable "Holocaust" story, with which they have beaten the White world over the head ever since.
And so today we have George Bush trying to outdo Bill Clinton in multiculturalizing the government of the United States. Conservative Americans, patriotic Americans, put their hope in Bush to pull America back from the insanity of the Clinton era, and the first thing Bush does is try to ingratiate himself with the Clintonistas, with the Jews, by appointing non-Whites to the most important posts in his administration.
Read the man's lips. What he's saying is: "Hey, I'm really not such a bad guy. See, I'm appointing Blacks, I'm appointing Jews, I'm appointing Mexicans. And the Blacks and Mexicans I'm appointing are just as pro-Jewish as I am. My tough-talking Black secretary of state speaks Yiddish and will support Jewish interests around the world just as strongly as Bill Clinton's Jewish secretary of state has done. You can trust me. I'll do whatever you tell me. I'll support Israel. I'll support 'speech crime' laws. I'm your man." And he's not saying that, he's not making these appointments, because that's what Republicans want or even what Americans want. It's what the Jews want. George Bush is a hollow man, an empty man.
And George Bush is a splendid symbol of the state of our race today: a splendid symbol of our moral collapse during the past century. It is entirely fitting that such a man should be our figurehead leader as we continue on the course of racial suicide that we have been on for the past century. It is entirely appropriate that he became our figurehead leader through the comic-opera sort of process we have witnessed during the last two months of the first year of this century -- which certainly will be our last century if we do not make a radical change of course soon and begin regaining our lost moral strength.
© 2000 National Vanguard Books Box 330 Hillsboro WV 24946 USA
The bandwidth growth is great, but that doesn't mean it is being used.
What would be great is if we could see the comparative stats on increased bandwidth vs. the usage of clients.
Increased bandwidth doesn't necessarily mean an expansion of access to everyone in the world.
fuck you, Slashdot
ALL WORSHIP BROADBAND!
Internet will replace all.
All music, all movies, all TV, all radio.
Internet OWNZ0Rz j00.
Ever since reading Edward Tufte's books on visualization of data, I've looked at graphs, charts, and diagrams such as those in this report with a much more critical eye. It really bothers me that people get away with distorting data so terribly. For example, take a look at that first chart of "Interregional Internet Bandwidth". The numbers seem to have almost nothing to do with how they displayed the data, aside from the general correlation between thickness of the line and the size of the number. Your eye is tricked into comparing the areas of some of the lines because of how absurdly thick the US / Europe one is. And the spread of data makes it impossible for the vague correlation of data to be meaningful. There's no way that Latin America / Europe line is 1/2000 of the thickness of the US / Europe line. It bothers me that "executives" will be making decisions based on poor data displays like this.
Steven N. Severinghaus
Can anybody please suck my dick ?
thx in advance =)
Wouldn't it be worthwhile for the researcher to add the Inner-European Interchanges, too? I remember from my time in Germany that FrankfurtLondon is a MAJOR Hub, for instance many English Providers have a direct peering at the DECIX. Same goes for the Netherlands and other countries. Now it depends on your routing, but many times you are being routed through other European countries first and then it very well matters how your interconnect with those countries works ...
Spootnik is a troll, look at his posting history. Don't let him gain karma!!
Being a moderator is really starting to take it's toll. I try to be the best moderator I can be, so I try to read every comment before making any decisions. It really gets to me what people can say behind their AC name. I would like to meet these people face to face sometime, and see what kind of people they really are. I'd like to see them say to my face what they post anonymously on these message boards. I know this is extremely off topic, but I have read the last 3 stories comment for comment at [ -1 | nested | oldest first ] and my mind is all bent out of shape on what kind of crap is being said. It's outrageous.
Oh, btw, I'm posting as AC myself so I don't lose my precious, precious karma when I got uber-modded down for this anti-troll statement
I'm really curious to read what they have in the sample page which features Israel and Ireland. Both have developed hi-tech hubs (Israel probably more so). I think I read that israeli companies form the largest contingency on Nasdaq after the north american companies, and they're mostly hi-tech. That should translate to some real bandwidth.
Zionism versus Bolshevism.
A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People
By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.
SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
And it may well be that this same astound-ing race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and successful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and pro-gressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friend-ship with France and Great Britain.
International Jews.
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the Inter-national Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews arc persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus--Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nine-teenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
Terrorist Jews.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and an the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution: by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordi-nate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.
The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there arc many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
"Protector of the Jews."
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin's authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish popula-tion, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate. to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms. The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to asso-ciate the Jewish race in Russia with the vil-lainies which are now being perpetrated.
A Home for the Jews.
Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.
Look at his posting history if you don't believe it...
So if a country went from 2400 baud modems up to 56k modems, would that be considered over a factor of 20 increase in bandwidth? Sure - doesn't mean they are downloading at a high speed relative to the rest of the world. A good sign, nonetheless.
479 percent (almost sextupling) for Latin America.
timothy, i think you mean quintupling, not sextupling.
it is funny to see where your mind was while writing this, however. heehee.
100 + 479 = 579 is almost 600
100 * 6 = 600
Sextupling seems correct to me
... just Americans think it is because they only visit English-language websites, and advoid anything that's "forreign".
If x increases by y percent, then
new x = (old x) * (1.y)
In other words, you count the 100% that x originally was, so sextupling (~579%) is correct.
Jaime
The article seems to send a message that a US-centric Internet is bad, even though other countries/continents are catching up. Umm, the Internet was invented by the DOD, and more or less just given to the (at first) US public, and then the world. At considerable expense, don't forget. For any country to complain about not having "equal access" to the Internet should basically shut up until they put in the money that the US put in initially. (Disregard the billions put into the infrastructure since then).
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that international connections, servers, and users are growing by leaps and bounds. The more connections in the world, that is more info that can be spread, more tolerance that can be learned, more history and purpose that can be learned. Cultures (sp?) intersect and learn from each other. The human race grows at a pace not ever, ever seen before!!
I just get very frustrated by people that say "Antartica only has a 4Kb connection to the Internet! Unfair!!! We deserve an OC-48 RIGHT NOW!"
I hope you see what I mean.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Bandwidth is like megahertz, it's an arbitrary number that may or may not be useful.
The broad-band providers maximized their customer experience by caching at their head-ends. The "massive bandwidth" of broadband was therefore useful, without the lag times that must be considered.
Even in a perfect network, the latency for data travel matters. How often are the LED's on your 56K modem pegged on by a datastream where your link is the limiting factor?
A 747 full of DAT's has truly awsome bandwidth, but the latency is deadly.
The beauty of this massive engorgement in fibers is that once layed, a fiber optic cable's capacity is limited only by the hardware at the end points. Any improvement in technology, such as WDM, multiplies the available bits-per-second without having to lay more fiber.
As places like NewYork and London and Tokyo reach a fiber glut, the rest of the world will follow. Just like telephones and electric power, "poor" places will simply get their access at a slower pace. But there are always alternatives, such as satellite, to get the information. It might not be in flashy graphics, or up-to-the-second, but "poor" areas have no demand for that to cover the costs anyway. That's why they're called "poor".
If you think that an area is under-served, then stand up and join or organize a group to lay the freaking fiber. Complaining all day won't put cables in the water/ground.
But when you do, think also of what it is you're connecting *to*, or you may end up connected to nothing anyone wants.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
One diagram shows the asia pacific region as having only 41.8 gbs to USA. Where's the 240 gbs between NZ and USA gone to?
mod this up
fuck the poor people, the internet will be much better without them
I fail to see why the poster claim that the net is US centric. Half the city of the top hub lists are not in the US. Also, in the executive summary on the site, it claims the key backbone truck are London->New York (77.7 Gbps), SF->Tokyo (7.9) an Sao Paulo to Miami (3.4). This just shows that traffic/capacity to the US from Asia and South America is pretty non-significant compare to traffic from Europe. It also says that within Europe, half of the traffic is within Europe itself, while to the remaining half goes to the rest of the world. So, at least for Europe, US is certainly not the centre of their internet.
Mod this down, plz. He's just making shit up
If you had 100 "units" of bandwidth, and you then had 174 percent of them the next year, you'd have 174 "units" of bandwidth. Which is not triple.
If you had 100 "uints" of bandwidth and you the ADDED 174 percent of that capacity (I guess they mean in this case that "growth == new", which is not clear), you would have 274 "units",which is not near triple either... it's closer to two and a half times... but I'm sure the folks who are exited enough to write about it want it to be triple.
You can also do the "shampoo" statistics. Take a 12 oz. bottle of shampoo. Make it into an 18oz bottle. It's now "50% bigger"... unless you do the math from the other side, in which case it's only 33% bigger.
I fergit who said it, but they were right: "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."
Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
D'oh! Don't you hate it when you put the decimal point a few too many places to the left?
5.7 Petabytes per load.
916 Megabits per second average throughput.
So maybe it is that awesome after all :)
You could take a week to write the tapes and load them, and another week to unload and read them, and you'd still have damned good throughput for an international link. I'm impressed.
Just goes to show - the calculator got the number right, but it's the nut behind the wheel who has got to get the units right.
Disreli - the dandy british PM in the latter half of Queen Victoria the seccond's reign. I think he may have been slagging of Gladstone at the time for 'prooving' something unsupportable with stats.
Sextupling is what the internet is all about!
sextupling is approximately equivalent to multiplying by 5.79.
;-)
I wrote the previous when I was too tired last night.
Jaime