Slashdot Mirror


Egypt Shuts Off All Internet Access

h00manist writes "Several sources are reporting Egypt has shut off all Internet access. There is still no official confirmation. Blackberry, twitter and SMS seem confirmed off. So, if you were there, what would you do to get communications for everyone? Do you still have a POTS modem?"

840 comments

  1. If you were there... by EEGeek · · Score: 0, Redundant

    you wouldn't be reading Slashdot, and thus wouldn't be able to answer the question of "what would you do if you were there"...

    1. Re:If you were there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh the question is hypothetical, so your point is exactly what?

    2. Re:If you were there... by Facegarden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you wouldn't be reading Slashdot, and thus wouldn't be able to answer the question of "what would you do if you were there"...

      The question wasn't: "If you were there, how would you answer this question."

      It was: What would you do if you were in Egypt and found that your connection had been cut off.

      Me, I'd shout the packets.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    3. Re:If you were there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if you were there, what would you do to get communications for everyone?

      Does this seem like a question that is directed at people that are actually there?

    4. Re:If you were there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you wouldn't be reading Slashdot, and thus wouldn't be able to answer the question of "what would you do if you were there"...

      reading comprehension fail

    5. Re:If you were there... by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I was in Egypt, I'd be pretty pissed at them canceling my circuses and would probably go out and break stuff.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:If you were there... by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      Uh the question is hypothetical, so your point is exactly what?

      Probably that the new /. hogs bandwidth...

    7. Re:If you were there... by exomondo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you wouldn't be reading Slashdot, and thus wouldn't be able to answer the question of "what would you do if you were there"...

      "what would you do if you were there."

      You see it's the 'if' that makes the assumption that you are *not* there - which obviously can be made given that if you were there you likely wouldn't be reading this - therefore making this a hypothetical question.

    8. Re:If you were there... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Me, I'd shout the packets. -Taylor

      Why not just email them?

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    9. Re:If you were there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was "Do you still have a POTS modem" hypothetical too? It must be. How many people know the dialup number to an ISP outside of their country. Do you?

    10. Re:If you were there... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The POTS modem question is rather silly, IMO. The same government that shut down your local ISP's and/or the internet backbone has control of the telephone lines. Think they are going to allow data connections via the telephone lines? DUHHHH

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:If you were there... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Technically, when it leaves your mouth it is a frame.

    12. Re:If you were there... by bored · · Score: 2
    13. Re:If you were there... by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      Fuck you! I have pigeons!!!

    14. Re:If you were there... by DavidRawling · · Score: 1

      So what! I'll just look one up on the Internet ...

    15. Re:If you were there... by AoT · · Score: 1

      Seriously, which official thought this was a good idea?

      Yes, the protesters used the internet to organize, but it isn't as if people don't know there's going to be a protest tomorrow, or today at this point in Egypt. All this does is piss people off even more.

      Alternately, it makes a lot of sense if the governments plan is to kill a bunch of people and they don't want the rest of the world to see it.

      As for the original question, the current news/rumor is that ham radio operators are sending out reports internationally currently. It might not be the internet, but it's better than nothing.

    16. Re:If you were there... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I'm partial to bandwidth, so I'd fedex my HD somewhere.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    17. Re:If you were there... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      *applauds*

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    18. Re:If you were there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It being the subjunctive, the phrase should be: ".. if you be there..."

    19. Re:If you were there... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      We're talking a middle eastern muslim government here ... These are the people who managed to get 1 million soldiers utterly defeated by 11000 determined men.

      So yes, they're going to allow that.

      They also "allow" sattellite, wireless links (into, say, Israel or perhaps Lybia), long-range radio, ... "allow" as in they don't know how to block it, but they'll kill you if they track it back to you and they can get to you.

    20. Re:If you were there... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's why it's blocked - hogs aren't halal.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    21. Re:If you were there... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Good one, bored - yes, you CAN connect, if you are determined enough, and have the necessary know-how, along with the equipment. Your post is miles ahead of those worrying about a POTS modem!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    22. Re:If you were there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It being the *past* subjunctive, the phrase is just fine as it stands.

  2. HAM by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like this is the moment the HAM radio folks always shine. I don't know what kind of following they've got in Egypt but I imagine it'd be pretty useful. That and texting.

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    1. Re:HAM by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      ... There is still no official confirmation. Blackberry, twitter and SMS seem confirmed off....

      Seems like this is the moment the HAM radio folks always shine. I don't know what kind of following they've got in Egypt but I imagine it'd be pretty useful. That and texting.

      Texting is tough without SMS.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    2. Re:HAM by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is the website for the amateur radio operators of Egypt organization

      http://www.qsl.net/egyptham/

      Their call signs are - SUA-SUZ, 6A-6B, SSA-SSM
      And wikipedia says theres about 113, really easy for the police and security forces to lock down.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_callsigns_of_the_Middle_East

    3. Re:HAM by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      Well, you can't really send an image.

      Or get your swiss checking account cleared out so you have some cash during the blackout... and pay your online bills.

    4. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is the website for the amateur radio operators of Egypt organization

      Egypt has shut off all Internet access.

      Waitaminute...

      (guess its hosted outside of Egypt. But not doing the Egyptians much good atm?)

    5. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      never heard of morse code?

    6. Re:HAM by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      Can you still do packet data over HAM? Back in "the day" that was like the coolest TCP trick.

    7. Re:HAM by Baseclass · · Score: 3, Funny

      How are you supposed to get porn over HAM radio?

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    8. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the HAM radio operators are uniquely identified by their call signs leading to rapid and efficient persecution. I guess the could use a fake call sign or encrypt their signal, but that is typically prohibited on HAM frequencies.

    9. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Someone's never heard of radiofax. If you're prepared, and have a computer and some basic amateur radio equipment, it's not terribly difficult.

    10. Re:HAM by devilspgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh well, if it's prohibited then I'm sure /no one/ will lie about their call sign while trying to evade a gov't ban on communication.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    11. Re:HAM by CptNerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Back in the old, old days there was this software called "SLIP" that was developed by Hams around the world. It stood for "Serial Line Internet Protocol" and was one of the first packages that let people connect to the Internet via their home modems. This was before PPP. SLIP was developed so Hams could transmit IP packets wirelessly around the world. Hm, wireless IP, I wonder where I've heard that before...

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    12. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh well, if it's prohibited then I'm sure /no one/ will lie about their call sign while trying to evade a gov't ban on communication.

      Exactly! Just like gun control laws.

      I mean, a psychotic homicidal criminal who is willing to commit MURDER doesn't seem to care about the death penalty or life imprisonment that comes with a murder conviction. But by God, he'll think twice about illegally possessing a gun or illegally carrying it concealed because of the much smaller penalty for those crimes. That is precisely how it will work, there is no logical flaw in this plan, and it cannot possibly happen any other way because violent criminals would never break laws that regulate weapons. You see, that's why gun control keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and never restricts the freedoms of law-abiding citizens who really would be afraid of a weapons violation.

      The pro-gun-control crowd need to either come up with a real answer to this that actually satisfies the objection or they need to STFU and realize that there's good reasons why people who can use logic don't take them seriously. It's really that simple.

    13. Re:HAM by Abstrackt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slow Scan Television (SSTV).

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    14. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      "you can't really send an image."

      ...in the same sense that you're not an idiot.

    15. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I imagine it'd be pretty useful. That and texting.

      Too bad SMS is confirmed as down there, according to the summary at least.

    16. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow-scan_television

    17. Re:HAM by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Yea, the Egyptian HAM site is hosted at a site for HAMs here in the States

      http://whois.domaintools.com/qsl.net

    18. Re:HAM by Pete+Venkman · · Score: 1

      AC, you've got it all figured out. You're the kind of person the Egyptians need to fix this mess. Go, now!

    19. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you actually can. very slowly...

    20. Re:HAM by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

      You're completely offtopic, but what the hell. The logic is very simple to follow. I'm not a particularly huge controll person, and in fact have owned a fire arm at various times. Never the less I understand the argument, and it's perfectly reasonable. The idea is not that evil murders will have awful moral compunction about having a gun. Indeed professional criminals in countries with strict gun control laws often have them. It removes the availability of firearms for less serious criminals. If guns are illegal, and very few people have them, they can't be bought in stores, and possessing them is a crime, then only professional criminals with the resources to acquire them internationally (or those with authorization such as the police/military) will have them. Common street thugs, random looney kids with delusions of fame from an assassination, guys who are abusive and drunk and after their wives... None of them is likely to have a gun.

      The real failure of this argument is not the poor and simplistic point you make, but rather the fact that guns pervade our country right now. Merely making them illegal would not do much to availability. Some would argue that it's worth doing anyway, in the hopes that it reduces availability in the long term. I question the usefulness of criminalizing a large segment of society in the hopes that it solve s problem decades from now. Much like Prohibition, it's bound to fail.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    21. Re:HAM by Mr+Otobor · · Score: 1

      HAM radio, for when tofurkey... ehhh, it too bad for me to even finish.

    22. Re:HAM by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Yeah, really useful until the giant antenna gives them away. And if they manage to make it stealthy, triangulating the signal isn't much more difficult...

    23. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will moaning work for ya?

    24. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are predominantly Muslim, so I think Ham is out of the question...

    25. Re:HAM by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Yeah but data over HAM bands is so slow it makes the most primitive POTS modem look good. OK for passing short text messages, a total joke for anything else.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    26. Re:HAM by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      If guns are illegal... then only professional criminals with the resources to acquire them internationally (or those with authorization such as the police/military) will have them.

      And that's the key to understanding the issue of gun control in the US: the right to bear arms is a check against a corrupt or treasonous police/military. After all, what else would you expect from a country founded on violent revolution?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    27. Re:HAM by Pax681 · · Score: 2
      Amateur Radio certainly helped get intel out during the Falklands conflict

      During the Falklands War in 1982, Argentine forces seized control of the phones and radio network on the islands and had cut off communications with London. Scottish amateur radio operator Les Hamilton, GM3ITN was able to relay crucial information from fellow hams Bob McLeod and Tony Pole-Evans on the islands to British military intelligence in London, including the details of troop deployment, bombing raids, radar bases and military activities. However, radio hams usually avoid controversial subjects and political situations and discussions as a part of the code of politeness of radio communications.

      A BBC reporter called Laurie Margolis tried to claim he was the guy who first contacted and heard it. however it was not him at all. it was a Scotsman from Clydebank who provided and kept providing the critical information.

      recording of it here

      BBC page here

    28. Re:HAM by Tromad · · Score: 2

      I would just like to say the US government really appreciates HAM radio operators. When I joined the local Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), a local government-setup disaster response unit, they continuously praised HAM radio operators as vital to disaster response teams.

    29. Re:HAM by spasm · · Score: 1

      SMS got switched off for all providers several hours ago: http://www.discourse.net/2011/01/egypt-cuts-internet-access-sms.html

    30. Re:HAM by Discopete · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can use packet-radio to send network data via HAM. It's slow, it's buggy, but when it's all you've got, it's there.

    31. Re:HAM by nura78 · · Score: 2

      HAM radio isn't halal :-P

    32. Re:HAM by AoT · · Score: 1

      Well, then conveniently enough, the government doesn't have access to it. Double edge sword and all.

      I've heard news/rumors that ham operators actually are getting info around and out of the country;

    33. Re:HAM by Kakari · · Score: 1

      Well, you can send an image at least.

    34. Re:HAM by MohammedSameer · · Score: 1

      Text messaging has been cut off too.

    35. Re:HAM by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      It would be good enough for sitreps, messages to families, and even small GIF or JPEG files. Slow is better than nothing...

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    36. Re:HAM by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of Egyptians are Muslim and don't eat ham though, while listening to the radio or not. And frankly, I don't know how that would help much in this situation.

    37. Re:HAM by sv_libertarian · · Score: 1

      Yes you can. I've even seen QR Code's sent in certain digital modes, and there is also slow scan TV, packet email, and all sorts of stuff. If it can be sent wireless, there is probably a ham radio mode for it. Oh, and ham isn't an acronym, no need to capitalize the whole word. However, totalitarian nations, usually have few, if any amateur radio operators; and they are usually heavily restricted and watched.

    38. Re:HAM by dintech · · Score: 1

      Are you asking for a saucy bed-time story from a burly arab dude? You're brave.

    39. Re:HAM by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      How are you supposed to get porn over HAM radio?

      Packet radio son!

    40. Re:HAM by yppiz · · Score: 1

      Here you go. Except it was translated by a burly English dude.

    41. Re:HAM by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if it's possible to do digital on such low frequencies, there is only just enough bandwidth for analogue voice. You would need to use a mobile station to avoid tracking and just use a fake call sign.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    42. Re:HAM by caluml · · Score: 1

      Little do you know.

      If you've got a dish/directional antenna, and some kit, you can hook it up to your computer, and decode loads of satellite images. You know the pics they show on the weather forecasts? They're just beamed down from space.

      More. Did you know Hams "own" 44/8" too btw?

    43. Re:HAM by mangu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if it's prohibited then I'm sure /no one/ will lie about their call sign while trying to evade a gov't ban on communication.

      What's the use of lying about their call sign when they are sending a signal that points straight at their transmitter antenna?

    44. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very very slowly...

    45. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Slow-scan_television

    46. Re:HAM by selven · · Score: 1

      Be a sniper.

      Keep within urban areas where you always have lots of escape routes, and know what they are beforehand. Take a shot and move on. Never return the same place twice.

    47. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well in Egypt it would be LAM or VEAL radio

    48. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_television

    49. Re:HAM by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      In issue 100 G.I.Joe that was tried when Cobra took over Millville but it didn't work thanks to Cobra's signal jamming jets. Now Cobra rarely wins and if such an incompetent terrorist organisations can think of signal jamming jets then surely Egypt can too.

      I would also recommend they use Dr. Mindbender's cyberspace matrix from issue 150 to protect Egypt against ninjas.

    50. Re:HAM by ViperOrel · · Score: 1

      Actually, a friend of mine who is a HAM operator has been doing so from before 2400 buad modems were around. I believe there is still a HAM based BBS system up and running. So, yeah, HAM porn.

    51. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on the distance, somewhere between slowly and extremely slowly.

    52. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... That and texting.

      Texting is stopped too!! All mobile services except phone calls to this moment are down since 10 PM GMT +2 Thursday.
      I am not sure if even mobile phone calls are stopped by now.

    53. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dit dit dah, big boy -- dit dit dah DIT.....

    54. Re:HAM by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      "A communications disruption can only mean one thing...Invasion."

    55. Re:HAM by hypertex · · Score: 1

      dit dit dah, big boy -- dit dit dah DIT.....

      CW _is_ the original digital mode

    56. Re:HAM by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Seems like this is the moment the HAM radio folks always shine. I don't know what kind of following they've got in Egypt but I imagine it'd be pretty useful. That and texting.

      Yeah, not only are the foreign devils helping your people revolt, they're using HAM to do it. Like that's not going to piss off the mullahs even more. At least the GSM phones are halal.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    57. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not, HAM is forbidden to Muslims.

    58. Re:HAM by Enigma23 · · Score: 1

      How are you supposed to get porn over HAM radio?

      I'm sure you'd be able to see a good porking... ;p

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une .sig
    59. Re:HAM by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's time that that packed up their gear into a van and and played some Guerrilla Radio?

    60. Re:HAM by operagost · · Score: 1

      even small GIF or JPEG files.

      I, for one, bow down to our Egyptian 1200 baud adult BBS overlords.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    61. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like this is the moment the HAM radio folks always shine. I don't know what kind of following they've got in Egypt but I imagine it'd be pretty useful.

      Except that Egypt is a Muslim country and ham is forbidden.

    62. Re:HAM by Jeff+Archambeault · · Score: 1

      Funny... I just got my /28 block in 44-land yesterday. Semi-isolated, 1200bps packet node running for months using linux native AX25 and FBB PBBS.

      My choice in such a situation would be to roll-out wifi mesh/bridges. Sure, mesh routing needs work, but it'll work in a pinch. Its an area where amateur radio can help do research for trickle-down consumer networking that can help make the "net neutrality" issue go away.

      Look me up on QRZ

      73 de Jeff KC2SDS

      --

      Plus ca change, plus c'est les memes choses.

    63. Re:HAM by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Seems like this is the moment the HAM radio folks always shine. I don't know what kind of following they've got in Egypt but I imagine it'd be pretty useful. That and texting.

      Texting won't work... Vodafone has been ordered to stop all cellular communications as well. I think that might upset a few people; I guess they figure 911 won't be too useful tonight anyway, as the biggest emergencies will be fairly obvious, and there won't be enough people to respond to anything else.

    64. Re:HAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they certainly couldn't use a false call sign.

      That still wouldn't prevent them from being tracked down eventually via triangulation or what have you, but the authorities wouldn't necessarily know exactly where they are right off the bat.

    65. Re:HAM by Panruru · · Score: 1

      Well, there's always porn for the blind...

      --
      "All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in another sense."
    66. Re:HAM by monkyyy · · Score: 0

      1`s and 0`s
      give it a week somone will have it up and running for a price

      --
      warning pointless sig
  3. CQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Amateur Radio?

    1. Re:CQ? by thehostiles · · Score: 1

      gov can pretty easily triangulate on it. That wouldn't be too good unless you were in an apartment complex

    2. Re:CQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pigions?

    3. Re:CQ? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      CQ?.. CB Time to stock up on those little Radio Shack walkie talkies

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:CQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uhmm, if they're willing to take the entire internet offline I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have a problem taking out an apartment complex to keep things from getting rowdy.

    5. Re:CQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes RFC 1149 of course

    6. Re:CQ? by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      Or had a mobile transceiver. Lots of people mount 100W transceivers in their cars, and the antenna isn't terribly bulky. And it's not like you have to get a signal to orbit or anything, a few hundred miles is all, and people do that every day.

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    7. Re:CQ? by v1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't work like in the movies. Triangulating a transmitter takes time, coordination, and experience. (I consider myself one of the better foxhunters in my state) And if the person doesn't want to be found, they can make it extremely difficult to pin down.

      Both german-controlled france and russia took the same novel approach trying to find spies transmitting in WW2... they'd cut power to parts of the city a chunk at a time until the signal went off the air, then tear apart that area. Shows just how difficult it can be. Nowadays though with dopplars and haddock arrays they don't have to shut down the grids, but finding the actual transmitter remains very difficult. (I've been foxhunting for just about 20 yrs)

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    8. Re:CQ? by Centurix · · Score: 1

      Livestock with extra electrons? I love bacon as much as the next person, positive bacon would make life perfect.

      --
      Task Mangler
    9. Re:CQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most countries have facilities in place to receive/record and triangulate most of all the signals passing through the air. It's pretty basic really.
      Anything having enough power to leave the country will be found immediately, if it were that important they could even send a missile there in under a minute.

    10. Re:CQ? by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

      "And if the person doesn't want to be found, they can make it extremely difficult to pin down."

      Not any longer. You start with a sensitive radio that picks up the signal from afar, and you switch to far less sensitive devices until even a REALLY strong signal can't be picked up/won't register until you're on top of it. Several layers of shielding around your detection device can help with this.

      That's how I've been tracking down various stray signals that occasionally make it into my house - baby monitors, over-powered wireless routers (modified past allowable TX spec,) unencrypted wireless, non-licensed GMRS operators, etc.

      Makes for good practice in observing radio traffic and separating out the layers.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:CQ? by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      Or had a mobile transceiver. Lots of people mount 100W transceivers in their cars, and the antenna isn't terribly bulky. And it's not like you have to get a signal to orbit or anything, a few hundred miles is all, and people do that every day.

      no the transceiver would NOT be of that power at all. however a linear amplifier could be used to push a signal out with more power. the CB people call them "burners" or "kickers"

      i AM a licensed Radio Amateur and a member of Lothians RAYNET(Radio amateurs Emergency Network)

    12. Re:CQ? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      All the sources you mention have certain things in common, they transmit either continuously or frequently, they don't tend to move about much and they tend to stick to one frequency band. In other words they aren't even trying to hide.

      A source that only pops up occasionally for short bursts is going to be much more time consuming/expensive to track because you have to listen for a long time to get each peice of information that takes you slightly closer.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    13. Re:CQ? by dondelelcaro · · Score: 2

      Not any longer.

      There are tons of ways, from repeaters to directional antennas to frequency hopping to intermittent transmitting to various spread spectrum techniques to highly mobile transmitters to variable power output transmitters. It becomes even easier if you are willing to produce harmful interference on bands that are not supposed to be used for amateur communications and intersperse your communications in pre-existing radio frequencies.

      It still may be possible for a determined adversary to track down an individual doing this, but it becomes very difficult (and also makes it much easier for the individual broadcasting to know that they are being tracked down.)

      --
      http://www.donarmstrong.com
    14. Re:CQ? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Constantly frequency-hopping is going to limit your bandwidth in the case of digital transmissions (though admittedly voice needs jack for bandwidth.)

      Directional transmission might be a pain but the problem with that would mean you've got multiple receiving stations (much easier to triangulate) or you need to know your roaming target to keep it going reliably.

      Still isn't too difficult armed with a few tools, and a laptop-based wide-band spectrum analyzer card.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re:CQ? by CobaltBlueDW · · Score: 1

      Googling "haddock array" comes-up with bupkis. If such a thing does in-fact exist, you must make a wikipedia page for it before referring to it on the inter-web-o-sphere. If you can't at least do that you are no better than Egypt. ;)

    16. Re:CQ? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that approach didn't work if the transmitter was running on batteries.

    17. Re:CQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you love my mom then?
      - Love, AC

    18. Re:CQ? by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

      Most countries have facilities in place to receive/record and triangulate most of all the signals passing through the air. It's pretty basic really.

      And unless they're transmitting from the middle of nowhere, it's extremely hard to get a narrow enough search area to find one person with a radio setup that might be quite small. You might know that they're in a particular apartment complex, but without searching room-by-room, DF systems aren't good enough to get an exact location.

      Even in the US, it takes quite a bit of effort (and some luck) to find people using a radio improperly. When I lived in Maryland, there was a guy who made fake distress calls via his marine radio on several weekends in a row. The state police & USCG narrowed the search area down to a fairly small area, but since it was in the middle of a marina, they couldn't determine which boat it was coming from. (He eventually got caught when someone who had been on the pier at the marina overhead him making the transmission.)

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    19. Re:CQ? by treeves · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, why do you do this? How often? Do you work for the FCC?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    20. Re:CQ? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      As mentioned in the response above to another, directional signals are rather simple to find due to limitations. Repeaters are REALLY simple to follow with a simple signal strength meter. Now harmful interference might be one issue but the problem is there's always a pattern to emerge if you made a CVS plot. Visual analysis usually works well for this (this is how I find eclipsing binary stars out in space.) Interspersing your transmissions across different frequencies will either increase or decrease your available bandwidth so you need to keep your transmission (if data) pretty tight in a certain range or higher, whereas voice can jump everywhere, but eventually it is predictable to find.

      It doesn't take determination, just a little thought into inherent weaknesses of each method and exploiting them. Basic security.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    21. Re:CQ? by dondelelcaro · · Score: 1

      Repeaters are REALLY simple to follow with a simple signal strength meter.

      The repeater itself may be (it can of course use any of the other techniques that a fixed transceiver can use), but it makes the actual individual transmitting to the receiver difficult to find, and finding it can alert the individuals using the repeater that someone is looking for them. (As well as being used to target the individuals doing the searching, eliminating people who are capable of operating the equipment for the search.)

      It doesn't take determination, just a little thought into inherent weaknesses of each method and exploiting them.

      Determination is just a convenient stand-in for the cost in time, equipment, and personnel required to locate the transceiver and the individual(s) operating behind it. Just like your searches for eclipsing binary stars have a cost in time, equipment and expertise, searching for transmitters has a cost. And your stars aren't actively trying to evade detection, either.

      --
      http://www.donarmstrong.com
    22. Re:CQ? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "and finding it can alert the individuals using the repeater that someone is looking for them."

      No. You're not transmitting, you're receiving. Unless there's some active security around the repeaters (like a camera) they're not going to know one thing about someone tracking them. There's a reason you observe RADIO SILENCE while tracking down a radio signal. You're supposed to be listening, not broadcasting.

      "Just like your searches for eclipsing binary stars have a cost in time, equipment and expertise,"

      Fifteen bucks in parts and the knowledge of how to graph or make a CVS chart, not very expensive at ALL. Now imagine, I can find certain types of stars with fifteen bucks in equipment, FROM LIGHT YEARS AWAY.

      You think it's THAT HARD AND EXPENSIVE to track a radio signal on EARTH?

      LMFAO.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    23. Re:CQ? by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of HF, not a 2M. A good mobile transceiver (say a Yaesu 897D) and a screwdriver antenna could reach Europe or anywhere in the Middle East easily.

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
  4. Ham radio by mapuche · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This works until the soldiers come for you.

    1. Re:Ham radio by msauve · · Score: 1

      Yea. All those soldiers with HF RDFs, which I guess you're claiming are standard issue in the Egyptian army.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:ham radio by Thing+1 · · Score: 2

      Seems like any sort of "broadcast" method would be subject to detection. We need to launch a satellite that others can point at to "narrowcast", and avoid detection. Okay, now I'm on a watch list(tm).

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    3. Re:Ham radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      keep it dead simple.

      you only need 3 of them. and some minor training to use them.

      Yeah... i doubt an army could come up with THAT....

    4. Re:ham radio by pjpII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It currently looks like people are switching to more old fashioned means and using leaflets and word of mouth. Hold in mind that though Cairo, and many other Arab capitals are gigantic, they are often much more similar to a huge collection of small towns where everyone knows everyone (and everyone's business). Taking out the internet seems like a particularly desperate act, especially since the protests are expected to begin following Friday prayer (which the government can't forbid completely without REALLY losing legitimacy) when people will be gathered together already (and thus able to communicate.)

    5. Re:ham radio by the_raptor · · Score: 1

      Ham's by international agreement are all licensed by the state. Even if they don't use their call signs it would be trivial for the security apparatus of a state like Egypt to start rounding them and their families up as they have addresses on file.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    6. Re:ham radio by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      The nice thing about Ham is that every commercial technology is also implemented using the amateur frequencies. Even wireless internet, television, and fax, although it is a bit slower than wired. The engineers that brought you these technologies are usually hams that made it work on the ham bands first, then dumbed it down for lay people to use.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    7. Re:Ham radio by msauve · · Score: 1

      ...like a radio isn't mobile.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    8. Re:ham radio by molo · · Score: 1

      In many jurisdictions, you don't have to be a ham in order to purchase or own a transceiver. I'm not sure if this applies to Egypt, but the idea is that even if they rounded up the hams and most of their equipment, there are likely other transceivers that can be used by unlicensed individuals, or can be provided to licensed hams to use without the government's permission. Yes, it would probably necessitate using fake callsigns.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    9. Re:Ham radio by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      IANAHRE (I Am Not A Ham Radio Enthusiast) but the kind of equipment required to maintain internet connectivity to the outside world, for themselves and others, wouldn't be all that mobile would it? Presumably you'd need a fairly large antenna? And of course wouldn't most hams be licensed anyway? And lets be honest, these aren't going to be freedom fighters are they? As romantic an idea as it is, they're probably not going to be Paul Muad'Dib characters, moving from sietch to sietch, keeping the internet running...

    10. Re:ham radio by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Ham equipment is much smaller and more portable than commericial. Every summer, field day demonstrates how easy it is to set up an emergency station that doesn't use the power mains. Not sure if egyptian hams have something like field day, but they can probably set up an emergency station. In an emergency, anyone can use ham equipment and hams can do stuff that isn't normally legal for them. When all hell breaks lose, laws don't stop good people. It's not like other radio services where the equipment enforces the laws, nothing prevents hams from engaging in transmissions that are normally unlawful if there is a need.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    11. Re:Ham radio by msauve · · Score: 2

      No, you're not a ham. I've communicated half way 'round the world with a portable, battery operated set, using a 50' piece of wire.

      Yes, you need a license to be "legal," but anyone can buy the hardware, and operate from anywhere, which can easily happen during political unrest. If there's a political uprising, do you seriously think lack of a license is going to get in someone's way? And do you seriously think that "keeping the internet [sic] running" is fundamental to communications? You've been spoiled by technology. A spark gap transmitter and crystal receiver is all that's needed to communicate over long ranges.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. Re:ham radio by Yo+Mama · · Score: 1

      ham radio already setting up: http://pastebin.com/fHHBqZ7Q

    13. Re:ham radio by uofitorn · · Score: 1

      "POTS modem is a decent choice for data"

      Maybe, but how many people know a dial-up number out of country that is also free?

      --
      "What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
      "Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
    14. Re:ham radio by uofitorn · · Score: 1

      Disregard this. I just realized that a number can be communicated quite easily by other methods, one of which is land-line.

      --
      "What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
      "Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
    15. Re:ham radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "anyone can use ham equipment and hams can do stuff that isn't normally legal for them"

      Here in the states it's 100% legal to use any means to get the word out in an emergency, no license required, you won't get in trouble. As a licensed ham, you are legally required to handle any form of emergency traffic. It's a nice combination. So, if you're a licensed ham, feel free to join in and help.

      Even if it weren't legal, the FCC can suck it as far as I'm concerned.

      73

    16. Re:ham radio by cpghost · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that a (regular or rogue) ham station is easily and very rapidly localized via triangulation. Unless it is mobile, i.e. in a vehicle.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    17. Re:Ham radio by aiht · · Score: 2

      Only one soldier needs an HF RDF.
      Well okay, I guess two for triangulating, but my point is that the ones who are beating down your door don't need their own.

    18. Re:ham radio by molo · · Score: 1

      It takes a significant amount of infrastructure in order to do HF direction finding. I believe the FCC has one facility to do it. The US military probably has a few in different parts of the globe. Egypt might have a facility or two. But the accuracy of these things will only give you city-level precision. Tracking it down further requires driving around the city with a receiver and looking at the signal strength. Not quick.

      The thing with ham stations is that you don't necessarily need a big antenna on a tower or anything. You could communicate with a wire antenna in a palm tree. You could go out into the desert and raise some 10m masts. Either way, these are low-infrastructure requirements and can easily be raised and town down in a matter of an hour. It should not be difficult to relocate after every communication session, even without running mobile (on a vehicle).

      Running mobile is also an option, and can be done on HF without much difficulty. A "hamstick" type antenna for the 20m band (14 MHz) is able to reach hundreds of miles, even with today's low sunspot numbers.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    19. Re:Ham radio by Gripp · · Score: 1

      yeah, you're right. the Egyptian gov couldn't possibly have a way of tracking HAM radio's....

  5. This is unacceptable by Baseclass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've always considered Egypt to be on of the more progressive muslim states
    Apparently I was mistaken.

    --
    ^^vv<><>BA
    1. Re:This is unacceptable by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      I meant relative to the rest of the muslim world obviously.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    2. Re:This is unacceptable by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So pretty much like the rest of the world?
      Most of the world is like that you know.

    3. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The U.K. isn't so bad.

    4. Re:This is unacceptable by tayhimself · · Score: 3, Informative

      Egypt is somewhat progressive for a muslim state, but that's not saying much. That said, make sure you don't confuse America friendly with progressive. The two do not go hand in hand, at least in the muslim world.

      That said, Egypt has a decent sized Christian minority (15%) that I think does OK which again is rare for a muslim state

    5. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just keep in mind, President Obama is now seeking additional powers to give him the ability to shut off the Internet in the United States in the event of an "emergency".

      We seem to be getting closer to States such as Egypt faster than they are becoming like us.

    6. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Egypt is progressive religiously; it has a large Christian population.

      However, its government has been holding its people under a "state of emergency" since 1980.

    7. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

    8. Re:This is unacceptable by PopCulture · · Score: 0

      >There. Is no such thing as a progressive muslim state. Qatar. i lived there for a few years. less human rights violations, crime, despotism, corruption, justice irregularities than the USA under george w. bush. the facts are hard to swallow, but there you are.

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
    9. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it might be worse than that. For example your original assertion might not be wrong...

    10. Re:This is unacceptable by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Progressive?
      They are ruled by a dictator who just happens to be US friendly.

    11. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this is flamebait, but last time i checked, Egypt invented no wars, or has scary "world police" agencies, nor secret prisons, or laws. Nor permits torture, or sham elections.

      Not an egyptian or muslim, but US people no business criticizing anybody these days.

    12. Re:This is unacceptable by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Qatar is a Monarchy. They might be progressive compared to Saudi Arabia, but that is setting the bar mighty low.

    13. Re:This is unacceptable by Exclamation+mark! · · Score: 1

      So... who won the last elections in Qatar?

      --
      I'm a wanker.... and loving it!
    14. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      I am not sure if I would classify Egypt as a muslim state in the traditional sense. The majority of the government, including the president, are actually Christian.

    15. Re:This is unacceptable by hnangelo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And by progressive you just mean they let most of them live. Christians in Egypt are in a pretty bad situation with Muslims shooting them when they are leaving church and stuff like that. Also, trying to convince someone to convert is a crime (death penalty if I am not mistaken), unless you are converting them to Islam.

    16. Re:This is unacceptable by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      "More progressive" is relative. Keep in mind that there are still entirely too many places where this shit still happens. I don't know much about Egypt, but if they don't have honor killings, that puts them ahead.

      I mean, yes, the Internet is important. Yes, it's probably what will prevent this kind of thing in the first place. But let's keep in mind what's really important here.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    17. Re:This is unacceptable by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You overlooked Turkey which wants to become a State of the EU, and has to prove itself to be tolerant of other religions and basic human rights (as required by the Lisbon Treaty).

      And YES I have a POTS modem, but it isn't much good without the internet. It would connect to my ISP and then have no website to access. And of course all the old BBSes I used to call directly have disappeared.

      Some of the old Usenet and Fidonet newsgroup BBSes might still be alive, but I have no idea what their phone numbers are.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    18. Re:This is unacceptable by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They do have sham elections, torture people for the USA even and have secret prisons.
      Nice try though.

    19. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, i was comparing it to the USA under pres. Bush.

      and you're right, that *was* setting the bar quite low.

    20. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea right, the UK is worse then the US.
      You guys are a stone's throw away from having telescreens installed in every home.

    21. Re:This is unacceptable by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      last time i checked, Egypt invented no wars, or has scary "world police" agencies, nor secret prisons, or laws. Nor permits torture, or sham elections.

      Check again. They haven't started any wars recently, but their police services are well-known torturers, and every election they've held for the last three decades has been a sham. You must not have been looking very hard.

    22. Re:This is unacceptable by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Even under that president we had elections, freedom of speech, etc.

    23. Re:This is unacceptable by Goboxer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can you have a truly progressive state if it has heavy and deep ties to a religion? There are several states and religions that come to mind...

    24. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!

    25. Re:This is unacceptable by ezzzD55J · · Score: 1

      "Christians in Egypt are in a pretty bad situation"

      That's not what I heard when I was on holiday there. The Christian minority holds a disproportionately large fraction of powerful positions.

    26. Re:This is unacceptable by Servaas · · Score: 1

      That's the biggest shame about Obama to me, a 30 year old dutch guy, right before election day it felt like the entire world, save for the middle east perhaps, hoped on someone who would inspire, who'd really rise up, take the world by the balls, and lead... Plus he was black! But that was only skin deep... he didn't really have Soul(tm) we all hoped so much, yet all we got was... this.

    27. Re:This is unacceptable by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This has nothing to do with "religion" per se and everything to do with political power. They aren't cutting off the internet to prevent "Draw Muhammed Day", they are cutting it off to try to prevent a Tunisia style rebellion.

    28. Re:This is unacceptable by PopCulture · · Score: 1

      what was the last war qatar waged against a sovereign foreign state for no reason, resulting in hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced?

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
    29. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Turkey is a secular state. Religious political parties are banned in their constitution.

    30. Re:This is unacceptable by unity100 · · Score: 2

      rest of the world isnt like that. you have no idea how it is around these parts.

    31. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I so love Sam Harris, dude is a bona fide scholar and a straight up pimp.

    32. Re:This is unacceptable by h00manist · · Score: 1

      And YES I have a POTS modem

      You can dial out of the country with it. It will be expensive, but you will get internet access. Assuming, of course, the nice Egyptian government hasn't cut off telephone access too, wihch some are saying they are planning to.

      littlebytesnews RT @RES911CUE: RT @LTLV613 @ProducerMatthew: Just in: Source within Vodafone Egypt says it will shut off all phone and internet lines until 5pm on Friday.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    33. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There. Is no such thing as a progressive muslim state .... Human rights, crime, despotism, corruption, justice, the works.

      Replace "progressive muslim state" with "US style democracy".

      Sort makes the generalization moot, huh?

    34. Re:This is unacceptable by kevinNCSU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >There. Is no such thing as a progressive muslim state. Qatar. i lived there for a few years. less human rights violations, crime, despotism, corruption, justice irregularities than the USA under george w. bush. the facts are hard to swallow, but there you are.

      How do you figure an ABSOLUTE MONARCHY has less despotism than a country under a freely elected president (along with with a freely elected legislative branch) who peacefully gave up office when his term was over. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the actual concept of absolute power despotism requires but it generally doesn't involve being beholden to elections, term limits and an elected legislative branch but instead all power is concentrated in a single unopposed entity sort of like....Qatar? I know everyone hates bush and all, but more then 50% of the voters voted for him in 2004 and voters choosing the "wrong" choice does not despotism make. I know that fact is hard to swallow but there you are.

    35. Re:This is unacceptable by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The thing is that Turkey is not a Muslim state in the way that Saudi Arabia or even Egypt is. Its a state that is mostly Muslims, but even with their somewhat more religious leaning government recently, Turkey took its cues from France and under Mustapha Kemal Ataturk made the state a secular state with its own form of laicite.

      It wasn't the West that abolished the Caliphate, it was the Turkish government that did that. Other initiatives included insisting on western apparel for everyone and even developing a Turkish alphabet based on Latin characters instead of using Arabic characters. A very big change for the state that used to be the center of the Ottoman Empire, and the Islamic Caliphate.

      Turkey, of course, has its own issues with human rights, and no one wants to be in a Turkish prison, but religion isn't the largest, by far. Their bigger problems are more of the ethnic variety, like with the Greeks on Cyprus and the Kurds they have in their own country. When it comes to those issues, the Turkish do have a fairly big problem on their hands.

    36. Re:This is unacceptable by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Go checkout the large parts of the world not referred to as "The West", see what you find.

    37. Re:This is unacceptable by PopCulture · · Score: 2, Interesting

      we also had decade+ long war without cause, open "legalized" torture of prisoners of war, corporate malfeasance robbing millions of their retirements and life savings, etc. etc. etc. qatar had none of that.

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
    38. Re:This is unacceptable by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Well unless they have blocked international phone service you could probablly get online by dialling out to an ISP in another country. Would be a rather expensive and potentially rather slow (depending on how well/badly they have implmented international phone service) way to get online though.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    39. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qatar is a Monarchy. They might be progressive compared to Saudi Arabia, but that is setting the bar mighty low.

      Prosecutors Fallacy much? That they are a monarchy doesn't necessarily cause them to be more or less progressive. The UK is a monarchy ...

    40. Re:This is unacceptable by leehwtsohg · · Score: 1

      Which is then a christian democratic state?

    41. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/muslim/fundamental christian/

    42. Re:This is unacceptable by pjpII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There. Is no such thing as a progressive muslim state. They are all horrendous in one form or another. Human rights, crime, despotism, corruption, justice, the works.

      Jesus, where to even start with this modded "Insightful" and the other terrible comments coming off it.

      First, all the issues you cite, "Human rights, crime, despotism, corruption, justice, the works" characterize the vast majority of countries outside of Western Europe (and you can include the Commonwealth in that) and North America, and don't correlate per se with states with majority Muslim populations any more than it correlates with years since the end of colonization or national GDP (and obviously probably much much less.) Most of those "more progressive" states have had quite a good amount of time to develop as nation states and many have had similar human rights problems in the past (e.g. much of Eastern Europe, Spain), while most of the Middle Eastern and North African countries are still one or two major regimes off of colonialism. So you have made a false equivalence of Muslim majority state=horrendous when there are exceptions on both sides of that equation.

      Furthermore, in many of the "worst" states, the governments have been aggressively secular, since they were run by minority groups (Syria, Iraq before the fall of Saddamn) and were not particularly "Islamic" in character.

      As for another poster who wonders whether they have honor killings, not so much, that tends to be in the Levant, and is a cultural rather than a religious ideal per se. Egypt does have issues with "female circumcision" (or whatever you want to call it) but again it's a cultural rather than religious practice.

      None of that is pertinent to what's going on, though.

      What is important is that these are incredibly courageous youth going out into the streets and facing who knows what - recent videos have shown what appears to be snipers firing on protesters, and one thing that has contributed to this movement has been videos of police brutally torturing prisoners - in the hope of changing their situation. They are putting their money where their mouths are, and are defying death to make themselves heard. This is a government that is willing to shut off an entire country's internet access, with all that entails for the economy and communication, to keep people from gather together, a basic right in many countries in the world. Coptic Christians are standing beside Muslims and asking for change - one of the main chants is "al-halaal wa-ya saliib did al-qatal wa-t-ta`dhiib" "Cross and Crescent against torture and murder."

      So lets stop making meaningless and false generalizations, and asking kind of silly questions about culture, and support a people trying to win back their freedoms, something that should appeal quite highly to the Slashdot crowd.

    43. Re:This is unacceptable by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Qatar has supported the US in these wars.
      They have illegal indentured servitude. The previous Emir spent his time stealing oil profits, which indeed robbed people.

      Qatar may not be Saudi Arabia, but is sure is no heaven either.

    44. Re:This is unacceptable by PopCulture · · Score: 0

      the iraq war, and guantanamo bay. that is how. it doesn't matter how many people hate GWB. the fact of the matter is, these human rights abuses and atrocities occurred. you think it is somehow less despotic that an elected government performed those actions?

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
    45. Re:This is unacceptable by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The UK is not a real Monarchy, Qatar is.

      It also does prevent them from being a progressive nation, since it means the people have no voice.

    46. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? That the government is shooting people and locking down communication to keep people uninformed?

    47. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qatar.

      Oh, that country where gay sex is punishable by 5 years in jail, often with lashings?

    48. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Sort makes the generalization moot, huh?

      Well, since one is true and the other isn't, not really.

    49. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not blame you because everywhere around you that's what you see and you have no other way to judge.

      As a moderate muslim, an egyptian and a person who grew up on the principles of the muslim brotherhood I could tell you that the ruling party in turkey is the closest representation of what a democratically elected islamic government would be like. The other governments that claim to be islamic already violated the very first principle of being chosen by the ppl and they also take away the right of ppl to change them. They are not at all islamic.

      An islamic party would be slightly right wing. Probably not as right wing as the conservative party in the states but maybe a few degrees to the left of that. This is fine as long as there are other parties in the system to balance that and as long as ppl have choices to make.

      The current egyptian regime is a totalitarian one that pretends to be democratic but they forge elections and they do not allow any party to be formed unless it has no mainstream support.

    50. Re:This is unacceptable by kevinNCSU · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, by the very definition of despot. Despot != human rights violations. Despot != atrocities. Despot means a single ruler with absolute power. An elected official sharing power with 2 other branches of government and whom gives up their office after their term is up because they don't have the power or authority to stay in charge is by definition is not a despot no matter how much you may not like them or the choices they made.

    51. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's like finding the dryest glass of urine...

    52. Re:This is unacceptable by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 2

      There. Is no such thing as a progressive muslim state. They are all horrendous in one form or another. Human rights, crime, despotism, corruption, justice, the works.

      I cannot believe that to be true, the U.S. would never arm and assist despots to remain in power! Never I tell you!!

      --
      BM3
    53. Re:This is unacceptable by gilleain · · Score: 2

      They haven't started any wars recently

      Well, they attacked the Hittites in 1274 BC, but no recent wars, no.

    54. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt has had its longest period of peace and prosperity in the last hundred years. It's the most powerful military in Africa, and one of the strongest in the mid-east, and yet maintains friendly relations with its neighbors and is a positive influence in relations between nations. He's certainly a dictator, and as such he ruthlessly crushes his opposition, but his main opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that seeks to turn Egypt into a religious state and pull it back to the stone age. In a country where women can drive, vote, and walk with their face exposed, where people can travel freely, practice religion freely (there is a large contingent of Christians in Egypt), and express their ideas on many issues, falling to Islamic fundamentalists would be a huge step back.

      Just because a large number of demonstrators want him removed does not mean that this is the will of the majority of the Egyptian people. The Muslim Brotherhood espouses some populist ideals that play to a certain part of the population, but there is a vast swath of the country's citizens that know that they are much better off making steady progress under Egypt's representative government than toppling Mubarak and replacing him with a religious zealot.

    55. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While horrendous, it all depends on what you compare it with.
      I would guess that makes it one of the very few Muslim country where it's not punishable by death...

      Most western countries had laws against gay sex 50 years ago, often with long prison sentences.

    56. Re:This is unacceptable by pjpII · · Score: 1

      By that set of criteria, Iraq and Syria are "secular" states as well, based on largely secular principles. If you use Roman alphabets as a criteria, then you'd have to include Malaysia and Indonesia, two of the largest Muslim population countries in the world. The whole problem with the original poster's (troll's) assertions is that they're a flawed generalization.

    57. Re:This is unacceptable by phmadore · · Score: 1

      True. If a state is run by religious fundamentalists, then it cannot be progressive. However, Egypt is one of the more DEMOCRATIC states in the region.

    58. Re:This is unacceptable by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      There. Is no such thing as a progressive theocratic state. They are all horrendous in one form or another. Human rights, crime, despotism, corruption, justice, the works.

      There. Fixed that for ya'. When the this or that collection of words, purported to be the complete and unerring word of gawd, is held cited as the source of law and the authority by which the masses will be "governed", human rights suffer. Always.

    59. Re:This is unacceptable by markgohara · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mubark is Muslim and the government is mostly Muslim. Please get your facts right before saying something completely ridiculous.

    60. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      sed 's/muslim//g' && sed 's/fundamental\ christian//g'

      There, fixed that for ya.

    61. Re:This is unacceptable by Americano · · Score: 1

      Man, that's just super-insightful.

      Care to cite an example of a country that *claims* to be a "progressive fundamental christian" state?

    62. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Tunisia-style rebellion the inevitable conclusion of broad-swath censorship like this? And it's not even censorship, really, because shutting ALL internet down will cripple business and communications in general, no doubt leading to chaos. If everyone in a room is ready to cut each others' throats, the solution is not to turn out the light.

      This seems fishy to me, as it would not be impossible for one sect or one other political party (of any number of people and of any or no status) to do this. It most likely IS the current (faltering) administration, but they are pretty stupid for doing it. It COULD be someone else who would like to see that faltering turn into outright failure and a coup d'etat.

      TLDR: If the current Egyption gov't. is trying to prevent Tunisia-style rebellion, this is a very DUMB move. If someone is trying to topple said gov't, this would be a logical catalyst for more radical (and doubtless more violent) protests, and it would be doable from the outside with the right code and network.

    63. Re:This is unacceptable by evanism · · Score: 1

      This is an excellent and most thought provoking response to my comment i honestly thought would be thrown down as flame bait.

      At no time did i comment on *people* or their religions, i commented on the *states*. I accept there are small deviations to the broad accusations i made, but it was meant to be a broadsword not a scalpel.

      To think over all the different muslim nations there are many brilliant examples of art, history, heroism and science, BUT in the world today the vast majority of those nations are hardly the model nation states that lend themselves to long term survival or prosperity.

      One poster mention Malaysia, which was an excellent retort, but still, is not a nation that one finds people banging on the gates to get into.

      Regarding freedoms and the fight for democracy, i dont think you really know what democracy is. It is TAKEN and FOUGHT for, not given. Our western states FOUGHT for democracy and it was tested time and again, and in the USA it is still being eroded with the highly probable outcome of another bloodbath, BUT fight you must for a democracy. Those in egypt, tunisia, etc, will die perhaps by the thousands, but that action should put some steel into them and make their resolve all the stronger. To simply "give" them freedom and democracy is hubris on our part and doomed to fail.

      I am not discounting them, or trivialising their struggle, but it true freedom is to be had, a revolution must be fought and quite a few heads left on the executioners block.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    64. Re:This is unacceptable by JMZero · · Score: 1

      Qatar - I remember that place. Too bad that nobody came to help when it was annexed by Iraq.

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    65. Re:This is unacceptable by markgohara · · Score: 1

      I will argue that the Christians under Mubarak have not been able to practice religion freely. The Copts have been harrassed, not allowed to build churches, have had their Pope imprisoned, and crimes against the Coptics rarely get the same attention that it would be for a Muslim. Now that being said it would be way worse under the Muslim Brotherhood, they would try pretty much genocide against the Coptics.

    66. Re:This is unacceptable by billgates · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a progressive Christian state. Progressive states are secular. By the time the US becomes a Christian state it will no longer be progressive. That is the trend we see from outside of the US.

    67. Re:This is unacceptable by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      There. Is no such thing as a progressive muslim state. They are all horrendous in one form or another.

      Just what do you mean by "a Muslim state?" Bangladesh is a secular democracy with a mostly Muslim population. So is Turkey.

      Mubarak's authoritarianism is orthogonal to Islam. People don't need religion to be power-hungry. Authoritarianism can show up quite well in Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Confucian, Taoist, or atheist populations.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    68. Re:This is unacceptable by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      Yeah, the Yom Kippur War doesn't count. Only tens of thousand died in that. Fuck them, who cares, it would detract from my ignorant joke! Hur hur!

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    69. Re:This is unacceptable by Lenardius+VII · · Score: 1

      All that Turkey does is...gobble...gobble

    70. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seems like theoretically, you could run a distributed BBS using only two users talking to each other at a time over POTS directly. exchange data that is different, hang up, and call another machine in the network. eventually, and quite slowly, information would propagate through. but the hard part might be co-ordinating calls so that you minimize busy signals. perhaps a required down-time duty rate would work, tho.

    71. Re:This is unacceptable by unity100 · · Score: 1

      japan with its 100+ million ? china with its 1 bil + ? india with its 1 bil+ ? russia with its 200 mil+ ? you wont find what you can find in middle east, in any of those countries, despite chinas oppression, russia's mafia, africa's brutality.

    72. Re:This is unacceptable by PopCulture · · Score: 0

      "Qatar has supported the US in these wars" but they didn't *wage* them. logic 101. get you some.

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
    73. Re:This is unacceptable by gsgriffin · · Score: 1

      You mean France. Oh, wait minute...not a good example...it is pretty bad.

      --
      jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
    74. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      turkey was also on the leading edge of giving women the right to vote

    75. Re:This is unacceptable by gsgriffin · · Score: 0

      If you liked it so much there...feel free to go back. I'll take the current corruption of the Obamanation over a monarchy or any other state that chooses to deprive people of basic human rights and force them to a religion of submission. No thanks!! You can it. See ya. Bye!

      --
      jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
    76. Re:This is unacceptable by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I dunno, does the U.S. count? Our ties to Christianity are so deep that if our President didn't attend a prayer breakfast and place his hand on a bible on inauguration day, we'd probably impeach him the next day.

      (Europeans readers right now are saying "No, the US doesn't count as a truly progressive state.")

    77. Re:This is unacceptable by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      USA: the perfect democratic state - one where half the population is in jail.

    78. Re:This is unacceptable by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      And they claim Americans are ignorant of the world.

      Only the rubes here in the US were fooled, and a lot of people chose to ignore the fact that Obama came out of the Chicago political miasma. An honest Chicago politician is like a caring bureaucrat, or an understanding police officer, or a flying unicorn. Good luck finding one.

      I love the "take the world by the balls and lead" part, there, seems like when a Republican tries to do that, the "Imperialist!" cries go up from the earnestly offended around the world.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    79. Re:This is unacceptable by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Most western countries had laws against gay sex 50 years ago, often with long prison sentences.

      And the US had laws against it until 8 years ago!

    80. Re:This is unacceptable by PopCulture · · Score: 1

      that is the most disjointed from reality statement i think i have ever read on the internet. congrats, i guess.

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
    81. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which all occurred in a country where power ultimately vests with the population. No President could survive if the American people were significantly against them and the actions they undertook (or allowed to be undertaken). Yet the President who initiated the war was re-elected by the people, and demands for those who authorised and carried out torture came from only a few.

      You aren't being oppressed by a tyranical government. You're simply experiencing the joy of a large-scale democracy: most people don't give a crap about things that don't directly affect them, and are often ill-informed about the things that do.

      The things you're complaining about are happening because most of the population permits it.

    82. Re:This is unacceptable by PopCulture · · Score: 1

      way to focus on one tree and neglect the forest.

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
    83. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here is a modem idea... in case the phone lines are not down, you can share your internet connection through PPP and someone from Egypt who has a modem can call that modem in case of emergency ;-) or may be some ISPs with dial-up access can help...

    84. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You disgust me.

    85. Re:This is unacceptable by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Egypt isn't a Muslim state like Saudi Arabia is.

      Egypt is a secular nationalistic state like Turkey, Libya, Syria or Israel is.

      Egypt does have a Muslim majority with a large Christian minority, like how Israel has the Jewish majority with the Muslim minority, but the Egyptian government is secular and Nationalistic.

      If the Egyptian government is overthrown the fear of Egyptian Christians, secular Egyptians, Israelis and the US is that the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwn) will rise to power within an Islamist government.

    86. Re:This is unacceptable by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      That said, Egypt has a decent sized Christian minority (15%) that I think does OK which again is rare for a muslim state

      The Coptic Christians are continuously persecuted in Egypt.
      Most of them are very poor and work on farms or in "unclean" city jobs that Muslims refuse to do.

      Then there's the New Years suicide attack that killed 23 Copts.
      I personally wouldn't call poverty and the threat of suicide attacks "OK"

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    87. Re:This is unacceptable by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I agree with you about China, India and of course South American countries like Brazil, but most of Sub-Saharan Africa is far worse than anything in the Middle East.

      Nigeria, the Congo, Somalia, the Great Lakes War, Sierra Leone, Liberia, all those places make even Saudi Arabia and Iran look like freedom loving vacation spots.

    88. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the idea is that they get a pass for anything that happened on Sadat's watch, since they assassinated him and all...

    89. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And YES I have a POTS modem, but it isn't much good without the internet. It would connect to my ISP and then have no website to access. And of course all the old BBSes I used to call directly have disappeared.

      Some of the old Usenet and Fidonet newsgroup BBSes might still be alive, but I have no idea what their phone numbers are.

      ==========
      As long as the international calls are not being blocked, suppose you can dial into other country's ISP?

    90. Re:This is unacceptable by goodmanj · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is he? There's a bunch of security-crazy congressmen who want to give him that power, but I haven't seen any statement by the White House asking for this power.

    91. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And I always thought Norway was the most progressive Christian state.

    92. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm Sorry, I thought Despot was short for despicable... That's where I went wrong.

    93. Re:This is unacceptable by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      The Italians and Cambodians among many would certainly be breathing a sigh of relief over that arbitrary standard.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    94. Re:This is unacceptable by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Hm, lets see here, Qatar reserves the right to kill you for "apostasy" or leaving a religion. Sure, they haven't actually killed anyone under it but no such law is on the books in the US and really, its rather terrifying in 2011 to even have that law on the books. Freedom of expression is severely limited to the point where you can't even display a cross in public legally, or allow foreigners to preach their religion. And Qatar has many, many, many other human right abuses. I'm not saying the US is perfect but to claim that it is better in an oppressive regime in Qatar with very little individual freedom when compared to the US with a lot of individual freedom is silly, especially since the restrictions in Qatar are much more apt to affect an individual than the abuses in the US. And while people in Qatar have more economic freedom in some aspects than the people in the US (no income taxes for individuals or Qatari owned businesses) I wouldn't say that the human rights are worth the cost.

      Qatar has made strong leaps forward when compared to much of the middle east, but is under more tyranny than the west, the US included.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    95. Re:This is unacceptable by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      I've always considered Egypt to be on of the more progressive muslim states Apparently I was mistaken.

      When the President has been in power for 29 years, I think it's safe to say that the State is not progressive.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    96. Re:This is unacceptable by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I've always considered Egypt to be on of the more progressive muslim states
      Apparently I was mistaken.

      Progressive muslims, not progressive statesmen. It's a 30 year old dictatorship that happens to have a muslim majority. Actually not too far off from a nearby country the US recently invaded and occupied. The major difference is this dictator is (currently) an "American ally"...

    97. Re:This is unacceptable by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Bush is hardly the first president to use the military for a little jaunt. Think Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, which were overtly imperialistic wars. Democracy survived them, and I'd wager the average citizen of Puerto Rico and Texas much prefers being part of the US than part of some larger Latin America failing or despotic state.

      At any rate, the fact remains that GWB did not seize power. The army wasn't marching down Main Street, USA. Public dissent didn't lead to mass detainment, torture and murder of citizens.

      Believe it or not, the United States isn't even the only democracy that has had a schizophrenic domestic vs. foreign policy. Britain was evolving into a full-blown democracy, and simultaneously was conquering vast chunks of the Earth's surface. France went through all sorts of democratic contortions even as it ruled its own empire.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    98. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion IS politcal power. Don't confuse it with spirituality.

    99. Re:This is unacceptable by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      The people are more progressive, but they're stuck under a dictator whom the US has supported

    100. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was in Turkey this past summer. "Progressive" is not a word I would use to describe it. Many, many, of the youth there believe the government is pushing it towards being more religious and less secular. Many google services are blocked as well, most notably youtube.

      Had a great time though.

    101. Re:This is unacceptable by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      They do have Al-Jazeera, which everyone in the West supports as a bastion of free speech in an otherwise despotic corner of the world RIGHT GUYS?

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    102. Re:This is unacceptable by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Give me a break. What is so horrendous about Senegal? Tell me the Islam-related problems in Kosovo. Have you heard any news about any Al-Qaeda in Bangladesh? I'm not hearing any corruption in Malaysia, and the list of countries goes on and on...

    103. Re:This is unacceptable by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      not sure, but i think Tasmania (Australia) still has laws on the books.

      though i don't think anyone's been put to death for it lately.

      FWIW, any country with capital punishment is barbaric. feels good man.

    104. Re:This is unacceptable by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      all religion has submission close to it's core.

      prove me wrong :)

    105. Re:This is unacceptable by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Not really. There are many ways to prevent the people from having a voice. It's not like I could be president here in the US, no matter how good I was, without the backing of certain players. The voice of the commoners may exist here, but it is vastly over stated and large parts of our government are appointed.

      On the other hand there is nothing that inherently prevents a monarch from listening to the voice of his subjects.

      I cannot speak to the state of Qatar, but claiming that having some semi elected officials means the people actually have a voice, and that having a monarch means they don't, is simply wrong.

    106. Re:This is unacceptable by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      No doubt we also of laws that imprison people because our population considers it 'immoral' that would not be illegal Qatar.

    107. Re:This is unacceptable by jackspenn · · Score: 1

      I view Socialism/Communism as the religions that progressives worship. Course, it is slightly different from religions like say Christianity, in the sense that Christians hold beliefs in principles that cannot be proven; whereas Socialists, Communists and Progressives hold onto a belief in things that have repeatedly failed, been disproven time and time again, actually reduce individual rights and freedoms, and yet remain the rage in universities funded by large capital endowments.

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    108. Re:This is unacceptable by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      Actually, Senegal has problems with AQIM(Al Qaeda in Mauritania), Kosovo is in the news periodically and had a NATO troop presence required in the 90s, Malaysia has huge terrorism problems just like the entire region including Thailand, The Philipines, Indonesia, and the list goes on.

    109. Re:This is unacceptable by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      I believe that law was repealed in 1997.

    110. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the Great Lakes War

      Screw you, Erie! FUCK you!

      Sincerely,
      Lake Michigan

    111. Re:This is unacceptable by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      I love the "take the world by the balls and lead" part, there, seems like when a Republican tries to do that, the "Imperialist!" cries go up from the earnestly offended around the world.

      100,000+ civilians dead after a misbegotten trillion-dollar snipe hunt for WMDs that -- oops -- didn't actually exist, and you find it remarkable that people objected?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    112. Re:This is unacceptable by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      That's par for the course in a culture where, as Harris says, "Your daughter has been raped, and what you want to do is kill her." If Egypt doesn't have that problem, they're definitely progressive by Muslim standards.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    113. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kosovo's not different than its neighbors. Malaysia's terrorism problems are no different than its neighbors. You said so yourself; " just like the entire region including Thailand, The Philipines, Indonesia, and the list goes on." So I wouldn't blame Islam, as the OP is doing.

    114. Re:This is unacceptable by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      50 years ago was, well, 50 years ago. We're talking about here and now.

    115. Re:This is unacceptable by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I consider myself progressive. I know a lot of 'em: heck I work in academia. I know exactly two who could be considered true socialists, and they have a much different system in mind than the Soviets did.

      When we progressives say we want to add a government social service or two, that's not just our foot in the door, with an eventual goal of discarding capitalism for full-on Five-Year Plan statist lunacy. We really do just want an extra government social service or two. To call socialism and communism "the religions that progressives worship" is about as fair as saying all conservatives worship Byzantium-style theocracy.

    116. Re:This is unacceptable by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      Substitute "religious" for Muslim and I'd agree with you. All theocracies should be overthrown and abolished, violently if necessary. That goes as much for Iran as it does for Israel.

    117. Re:This is unacceptable by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Tell me the Islam-related problems in Kosovo.

      I dunno, does burning Christian Orthodox churches count?

    118. Re:This is unacceptable by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just like disproportionally large fraction of Jews are bankers, right?

      You might find this an interesting read.

    119. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A whole bunch of Egyptian Christians just recently got murdered in a church bombing.

    120. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be staring down the barrel of a tank, with no internet to tell anyone, faster than you can say "democracy" in the US too, if the people would revolt. That has less to do with religion and more with the nature of the powers that be clinging to said power at all costs.

      Total control over the internet and more power to use the military against its own people is on the agenda of any government these days.

    121. Re:This is unacceptable by evanism · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward, written like a true patriot. Hiding behind anonymity, behind a locked door, down in your mummys basement, masturbating over some hentai manga? How about being explicit in what's is disgusting, or cant you verbalise over the drool?

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    122. Re:This is unacceptable by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      How is that different than anywhere in the Balkans? The entire region has instability and destruction of churches and mosques by various ethnic and nationalist groups isn't new. It's more due to being in the Balkans and dealing with a spiral of reciprocating violence rather than being a Muslim country, my original point.

    123. Re:This is unacceptable by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Al-Jazeera is whatever the West wants its people to believe.

      Today it's generally being portrayed as a media outlet in the Arab world which is reasonably free (insofar as any media outlet in a muslim country can be). Yet ISTR it was described as a Taliban propaganda station circa 2001-2002.

    124. Re:This is unacceptable by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Prosecutors Fallacy much? That they are a monarchy doesn't necessarily cause them to be more or less progressive. The UK is a monarchy ...

      Only in name.

      The UK has been removing power from the monarch since some time before the Restoration. Today, our monarch can't propose legislation and while they can - in theory - veto legislation going through our parliament, this hasn't happened since 1708.

      Chances are if it did happen, we'd have a fairly significant political crisis on our hands because the monarch grants assent on the advice of ministers who represent the very parliament that's just passed the bill.

    125. Re:This is unacceptable by sunbird · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've always considered Egypt to be on of the more progressive muslim states

      Whaaaaat? Egypt is ruled by a dictator that tolerates no dissent. There has been a state of emergency there for 44 years! Let's see, where to start. In 2009, the U.S. Department of State Human Rights report had this to say:

      Police, security personnel, and prison guards often tortured and abused prisoners and detainees, sometimes in cases of detentions under the Emergency Law, which authorizes incommunicado detention indefinitely, subject to a judge's ruling.

      and

      Police and the SSIS reportedly employed torture methods such as stripping and blindfolding victims; suspending victims by the wrists and ankles in contorted positions or from a ceiling or door frame with feet just touching the floor; beating victims with fists, whips, metal rods, or other objects; using electric shocks; dousing victims with cold water; sleep deprivation; and sexual abuse, including sodomy. There was evidence that security officials sexually assaulted some victims or threatened to rape them or their family members. Human rights groups reported that the lack of legally required written police records often effectively blocked investigations.

      It just goes on and on. And, keep in mind, the U.S. DOS reports tend to be very conservative, so when this stuff ends up in a DOS report, things on the ground are much, much worse.

    126. Re:This is unacceptable by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Heh, help the third world become more similar to the USA by lowering the bar?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    127. Re:This is unacceptable by chip_s_ahoy · · Score: 1

      You deserve a 6.

    128. Re:This is unacceptable by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Qatar - I remember that place. Too bad that nobody came to help when it was annexed by Iraq.

      I think that you're mixing Qatar with Kuwait

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    129. Re:This is unacceptable by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Wait for Sarah Palin.

    130. Re:This is unacceptable by h00manist · · Score: 1

      They have illegal indentured servitude.

      Plenty of slavery in the US too. I met several. If you don't know about it, that's because human rights and the much-touted free press doesn't really work.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    131. Re:This is unacceptable by the_enigma_1983 · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what they want, or don't want, but do you really expect them to officially come out and say "Yes, we do want to be able to shut off all communications between the citizens"? It sounds to me more like the sort of back room deal, where they just come out one day and say "Yes, we have the ability and we switched it off last night due to XYZ"

    132. Re:This is unacceptable by kevingolding2001 · · Score: 1

      That said, Egypt has a decent sized Christian minority (15%) that I think does OK

      True enough, given a fairly liberal interpretation of OK.

    133. Re:This is unacceptable by mcvos · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, many Egyptian muslims responded to that attack by supporting the Copts. Something good might actually come out of this. A bit more democracy and a bit more religious tolerance would be an awfully nice change.

    134. Re:This is unacceptable by mcvos · · Score: 1

      (Europeans readers right now are saying "No, the US doesn't count as a truly progressive state.")

      That is indeed exactly what I was thinking. I regularly recognise some scary similarities between the US and various muslim countries. It's by no means universal to all Americans, fortunately, but then again, not all muslims are fanatical nutjobs either.

    135. Re:This is unacceptable by gtall · · Score: 1

      Turkey isn't a Muslim state now, but I'm willing to wait 20 years for them to become one. Islamists are never satisfied unless they have total control to make everyone as miserable as themselves.

    136. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We seem to be getting closer to States such as Egypt faster than they are becoming like us."

      Or perhaps states are all alike, and you've just stopped drinking the koolaid.

    137. Re:This is unacceptable by gtall · · Score: 1

      The Egyptian government decided that Swine Flu is caused by pigs and ordered all the pigs in the country to be slaughtered. It was easy for them since pigs don't fit into Islam very well. However, the pigs were owned by the Christians who kept them because they allowed them to continue to work in one of the few sectors allowed for them, garbage collection. Once the pigs were gone, the Christians doing garbage collection had to find other ways to survive. The Egyptians then experienced a garbage crisis. That was roughly about 2 years ago, not sure where the garbage goes now.

    138. Re:This is unacceptable by cronius · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the Nobel peace prize that went to the chinese activist for human rights works.

      In a sense, the west is asking China to move closer to our ideals. At the same time, the Norwegian government is planning on storing cellphone/Internet traffic metadata for 6-24 months for *every citizen* through the European Data Retention Directive, effectively moving Norway closer to China.

      --
      Life is Reality
    139. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We call them *televisions* over here.

    140. Re:This is unacceptable by Cassander · · Score: 1

      There. Is no such thing as a progressive muslim state. They are all horrendous in one form or another. Human rights, crime, despotism, corruption, justice, the works.

      This is a true statement. However, it is still a true statement if you take out the word "muslim". Let's not contribute to divisiveness....

      --
      Knowledge != Intelligence
    141. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've always considered Egypt to be on of the more progressive muslim states
      Apparently I was mistaken.

      The news media has probably failed you. What they should have been telling you is that Egypt is a brutal dictatorship that routinely tortures people who politically oppose the government. They should also have told you that your government and many other western governments consider Egypt to be an ally...

      Instead they probably went with the government version, that Egypt is a relatively friendly nation.

    142. Re:This is unacceptable by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      I think he means socially progressive, in the sense that women aren't generally murdered in Egypt for walking around in public unaccompanied or for failing to wear a burqa.

    143. Re:This is unacceptable by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I wonder how "insightful" would this remark be moderated if it was anti-Semitic instead of anti-Islamic.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    144. Re:This is unacceptable by udippel · · Score: 1

      Nitpicking, I know. Indonesia actually is (largest Muslim population), while Malaysia has an Islamic population of well below 20 million.

    145. Re:This is unacceptable by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Just because you want to edit the dictionary for political reasons, doesn't mean we have to go along with it.

    146. Re:This is unacceptable by lurcher · · Score: 1

      I admit it, I can't work out if you are being humerous or just don't know how usenet over uucp used to work.

    147. Re:This is unacceptable by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      I find the hypocrisy nauseatingly amusing. "Take the world by the balls and lead but don't do anything we don't want you to do."

      Oh, and there were WMDs, if you do some research outside of your main media. There was a convoy of them that went into Syria. That doesn't fit the narrative of "evil imperialist US" though.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    148. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, people keep repeating this, and they don't bother to either a) read the current legislation or b) read the previous legislation granting similar power to the President.

      The general idea of the "kill switch" bill is to cut off internet access during emergencies to the "federal information infrastructure" (defined in the bill). It's actually a limit to his current powers defined in section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 , which provides an unlimited ability to a President to "cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication" and "authorize the use of control of any such facility or station" by the executive branch.

      Currently, for instance, he could declare an emergency and take over Slashdot (with federal marshals standing watch over the admins) and make up his own stories, if he wanted. Under the new bill, he'd be limited to closing the site.

      I'll take the limitations to the new bill instead, thanks, though the reality is that in the case of a declared "National Emergency" and using provisions for "National Security", whoever holds the title of President could do just about any damn thing they wanted anyway.

      I don't think "Blackberry" Obama is going to be the guy to cut off the interwebs, though - Moreso than any other president before him, he's reliant upon it and its decentralized nature for information.

    149. Re:This is unacceptable by boxwood · · Score: 1

      Malaysia isn't so bad.

    150. Re:This is unacceptable by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      I guess the old times of having pharaohs lead the country under extreme rule is not so far gone, I guess we have just replaced the name of pharaoh with president....but we stopped building pyramids so other countries would not be the wiser.

    151. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always considered Egypt to be on of the more progressive muslim states
      Apparently I was mistaken.

      You were wrong. Like most of the arab/muslim states, Egypt is a brutal dictatorship.

      The thing I always find odd is that the arabs & muslims only seem to protest against Israel. Until recently, I have never seen the arabs & muslims protesting their own governments.

    152. Re:This is unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how else will women learn they're worth less than men? And cattle...

    153. Re:This is unacceptable by nicholas22 · · Score: 1

      Muslim states are generally highly oppressive towards other religions. You will find some exceptions here and there, but you will also find barbaric oppression too.

    154. Re:This is unacceptable by tokul · · Score: 1

      It wasn't the West that abolished the Caliphate, it was the Turkish government that did that. Other initiatives included insisting on western apparel for everyone and even developing a Turkish alphabet based on Latin characters instead of using Arabic characters.

      Does it include capitalization rules that differ from standard English capitalization in some very interesting way? I guess I was right suspecting that this programmer's i18n nightmare started in 192x.

    155. Re:This is unacceptable by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say conservative. I think 'the mean' would be better. Some areas in Egypt will be worse, and others will be better then the report.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    156. Re:This is unacceptable by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That';s not what a few congress men are saying at all.

      They want the president to have the power to be able to shut off parts of the internet that may become a risk under an attack.

      Just like the president can shut down roads and other critical infrastructure. Just like the president can declare martial law.

      Quite frankly, The president should have that power. Bear in mind, any president that declares martial laws isn't likely to be president for long.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    157. Re:This is unacceptable by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Assuming that they haven't requested that telephone service providers shut off phone service as well. It seems likely that they have, aside from key lines in the government (and I imagine government still has access to outside internet).

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    158. Re:This is unacceptable by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      Their neighbors are all heavily Islamic. As are the terrorists in those regions.

    159. Re:This is unacceptable by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Just because they were on "our" side? Plus a nice holiday destination, surely it can't be that bad in such case... (while, ironically enough, when looking at the area a bit further to the East - it's not too hard to consider Iran as more progressive than most of our allies in that particular region)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    160. Re:This is unacceptable by PopCulture · · Score: 1

      >Bush is hardly the first president to use the military for a little jaunt. so that makes it okay? no. it does not. your "little jaunt" destabilized the entire middle east, putting iran suddenly as the regional superpower. it killed tens of thousands, maimed hundreds of thousands, and displaced millions. your "little jaunt" left us lagged an entire generation of military tech behind china as we spent our money waging war for 10 years rather than investing and innovating. very expensive things, in terms of blood and innovation, those "little jaunts"

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
    161. Re:This is unacceptable by unity100 · · Score: 1

      still wrong. repression, exploitation, clan structure, slavery are institutionalized in saudi arabia. in congo etc, at least you have the opportunity to take an ak47 and fight back, and some charade posing as a democratic presidency.

  6. Learning from History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We still had revolutions before the internet. What do they really think this will accomplish? If anything depriving these good people of essential services will just be like throwing petrol on a fire...

    1. Re:Learning from History by Zancarius · · Score: 0

      If anything depriving these good people of essential services will just be like throwing petrol on a fire...

      Oooooh buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn.

      (Side note: I'm not sure whether to laugh hysterically in extremely tasteless jest or simply stand with my mouth agape given what's been happening with self-immolation over there...)

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    2. Re:Learning from History by h00manist · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same. Cutting off everyone's communications is just going to get them more pissed off. And now they can't even stay home and read about the protest, they have to go and... participate!

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    3. Re:Learning from History by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      It's worse. Cutting communications is assuming defeat.

    4. Re:Learning from History by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      What do they really think this will accomplish?

      I'm guessing they think it will make it harder for the protesters to communicate, coordinate, or send information about the situation to the outside world. They don't want a tank man.

    5. Re:Learning from History by rusl · · Score: 1

      I'm really curious as to weather, looking back after the dust eventually settles, this will be seen as a good move on the establishments part. My suspicious is that no, this will galvinise people. Also, there is much criticism of modern dissent that we just sit in front of our TV screens and whine to each other. When we can't do that... Probably there is more people around able to actually do something concrete. On the other hand communication is vital, and that is certainly curtailed here. So it's a really interesting strategy.

      And taking off the cold blooded analyst hat: More power to them in Egypt! Maybe democracy will catch on here too? (I'm in Canada)

      --
      Stupidity is its own reward.
    6. Re:Learning from History by 4phun · · Score: 1

      Brace yourself.

      The Obama Administration wants an' Internet Kill Switch' too. I just received a note that new legislation will be introduced soon to give him those remarkable powers.

      I bet that then every other government will want their own Internet kill switch too.

      When the day comes that the US President has to protect the country by shutting down the Internet, the amount of pain felt by business, and even the government itself will be immense. For all to accept that painful action, the threat facing the US will have to be enormous. I can think of only one situation of social upheaval that could take the US by surprise.

    7. Re:Learning from History by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      It may have nothing to do with the success or failure of the revolt. I remember both Burma and Iran likewise cut off Internet access and both successfully crushed their rebellions.

      If anything, this drives the movement further underground where it is harder for the authorities to track their messages-- since SSL and VPN/SSH tunneling aren't as widespread as they should be, it's not that hard for authorities to snoop on online conversations, especially if they are in control of the gateways. I'm sure there are/will be more than a few heated arguments between police and politicians over this one.

      Maybe in the long run, such actions will result in the toppling of those two regimes as well. But the first step of any totalitarian regime is to control how the people receive information, and if the Internet stands in their way, they'll cut off the Internet. Strategically and politically it makes little more sense than an angry despot throwing a tantrum, but that's reality.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  7. Telegraphs by Propugnator · · Score: 1

    Old tech, but useful under these circumstances. Morse code anyone?

    1. Re:Telegraphs by thehostiles · · Score: 2

      you might as well use tin can telephones.
      You need a wire going between you and your audience, kind of a big deal

      what about messages on bathroom stalls? It's the only thing I can think would at all replicate facebook

    2. Re:Telegraphs by Propugnator · · Score: 1

      There is such thing as wireless telegraphy, though as mentioned elsewhere it would be easy to locate the user. As for bathroom stalls, awesome idea.

  8. Helluva long distance call by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2

    Do you still have a POTS modem?

    Even if you have a dial-up modem, what are you going to connect to? Call the US and connect to AOL?

    1. Re:Helluva long distance call by luckymutt · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well...you can just use Skype to dial in to AOL and then you can avoid the long distance charg...oh, wait.

    2. Re:Helluva long distance call by Netshroud · · Score: 1

      What, you haven't been saving your 30-day AOL trial CDs?

    3. Re:Helluva long distance call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My cable Internet company provides dial-up access worldwide.

      My work depends on me having an Internet connection at all times so when the cable, DSL, and cellphone go down I use the dial-up. It's my last resort failsafe (actually it can fail too much it's another tool in my chest). Around here the hard phonelines are usually the first thing to be restored after a disaster so dial-up is often the first thing available to me in such times.

      (actually I have a super-failsafe in the form of a HAM packet radio connection but it can only be non-commercial traffic and it's slow as hell, 9600 BPS half-duplex)

    4. Re:Helluva long distance call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you still have a POTS modem?

      Even if you have a dial-up modem, what are you going to connect to? Call the US and connect to AOL?

      Nah even the Turkish know that AOL sucks!!!

    5. Re:Helluva long distance call by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      That is precisely what you'd do. Dial-up modems are perfectly able to connect to dial-up ISPs in different countries. Hell I remember doing it myself in the mid-90s, just to see if it would work (dialed into a US ISP from Australia: it worked, but was very slow and required the use of the 0015 prefix to force it to use high quality fax lines rather than the normal 0011 prefix for voice calls).

    6. Re:Helluva long distance call by dintech · · Score: 1

      Call the US and connect to AOL?

      That would be expensive. It would help if they use their dial-up connection over Skype. /joke

    7. Re:Helluva long distance call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! That's where the 25% of AOL customers who actually have some use for the service are!

    8. Re:Helluva long distance call by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might be too young to know, but modems are good for more than connecting to ISPs. You can create data connections to other persons, forming a shadow network.

      Something like Fidonet with its node/point structure could be made pretty much unkillable even in such a situation unless the state would kill ALL communications.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    9. Re:Helluva long distance call by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      for the record every laptop just about has a POTS RJ11 modem socket.

      Maybe AOL does have a 1800 POTS # ?

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    10. Re:Helluva long distance call by jmauro · · Score: 1

      You'd have to build something fundamentally different from FidoNet. It used a very heirarchial structure thatcould be taken down by taking out just a few core nodes. In addition, each node is required to contain a list of ever other system in the network which would give the authorities a list of thier next targets.

      While it might be possible to build a phone network from scratch in all likelyhood it would be difficult to figure out who your neighbors are and how to contact them without raising informing the authorities on who they are (remember all the phone calls are logged in the central office). You really need something like the Internet with a one-to-many connection for at least plausable deniablity and neighbor hiding.

    11. Re:Helluva long distance call by Xserv · · Score: 1

      WWIVnet was similar to your one-to-many scenario. The protocol did have routing tables but were fairly fault tolerant as I remember them. If a node was down, it was still transmit to the other notes in a mesh type style. ... unless of course, the node that was down was the hop that called several other systems to update the message queue. But, with enough nodes, and network correctly defined callouts, all sites would eventually get the update and the down node would be caught up to current. At least that's how I remember it. I haven't run a WWIVnet system since 1996 though...

      --
      "I love lamp."
    12. Re:Helluva long distance call by twoHats · · Score: 1

      Back in the day, we used to connect modem to modem - and make BBSs (a place to connect where others connect) - Only a phone line needed.

  9. Done in response to this video by juicegg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It happened immediately after this was posted: http://video.ap.org/?f=None&pid=oT7qj_wiVHTbYae3scwok4_irYjJ2R8Z (warning: disturbing)

    1. Re:Done in response to this video by lul_wat · · Score: 1

      Have you seen people around the Middle East when they protest? They get pissed. off.

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    2. Re:Done in response to this video by Exclamation+mark! · · Score: 1

      They get like that about anything. Hot climates, hot heads, cool climates cool heads.

      --
      I'm a wanker.... and loving it!
    3. Re:Done in response to this video by tautog · · Score: 1

      They get like that about anything. Hot climates, hot heads, cool climates cool heads.

      Eerily insightful. Well said.

    4. Re:Done in response to this video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's in the video? Is there another source of it? I don't have flash player, and it's not available on my platform, so I can't watch it from that link.

    5. Re:Done in response to this video by Thing+1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      So disturbing it won't play. I saw the other one at YouTube though, at 0:13 the guy gets shot by a sniper for "picking something up". (Was it a pistol? I couldn't tell. Even if it was, was it a threat to the sniper who was hundreds of feet away?)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    6. Re:Done in response to this video by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Informative

      Snipers always shoot people who aren't a threat to the sniper themselves. That's what they are for.

    7. Re:Done in response to this video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They cut the internet off because they are afraid of Wikileaks...

    8. Re:Done in response to this video by evanism · · Score: 1

      Im on my ipad. I cant see it either. Maybe steve is egyptian!

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    9. Re:Done in response to this video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you account for Australia? Fucking hot right now and our protestors are all fucking pussies compared to the Egyptian protestors.

    10. Re:Done in response to this video by Exclamation+mark! · · Score: 1

      Now you made me think that air conditioning is the solution to the Middle East peace process!

      --
      I'm a wanker.... and loving it!
    11. Re:Done in response to this video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snipers are meant to take out threats that are pretty far from them...

    12. Re:Done in response to this video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YouTube copy of the video:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XnhHzs91MY&feature=player_embedded

    13. Re:Done in response to this video by orphiuchus · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I hate when civilians who's combat experience is limited to modern warfare 2 criticize the practices they see in videos from war zones. Guess what? Troops aren't police, if you're in a war zone and you see combat forces don't fucking point a camera at them, don't write something down on a notepad, don't dial your cell phone, just get the fuck out of there.

      This is compounded if the military isn't western.

    14. Re:Done in response to this video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You non-crazy whities are too civilised.

    15. Re:Done in response to this video by mjensen · · Score: 1

      For those that still want to see this, the video needs Flash Player 9, and shut of Privoxy.

    16. Re:Done in response to this video by rcb1974 · · Score: 1

      Outrageous. This video makes me angry and I'm not even an Egyptian. Why did that sniper take out that harmless Egyptian civilian? Because he was throwing rocks from 200 yards away? That civilian was not a threat. Those police were carrying shields that could easily block thrown rocks.

      People must have the right to communicate freely, bear arms, armor, and gas masks. I'm an American and I'm really glad we have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from an invading force domestic or foreign. Time to go spend $500 on a class 3 bullet proof vest and $200 on a gas mask for when the SHTF in America do to melt up.

    17. Re:Done in response to this video by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That's why Iran is trying to build all those nuclear power plants - just imagine how much electricity do you need to cool the entire country down in that climate! ~

    18. Re:Done in response to this video by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Is it a war zone? I thought it was still at the level of protests. Although snipers shooting demonstrators seems like a great way to turn it into a civil war.

    19. Re:Done in response to this video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why snipers are never taken prisoners. (They are always shot or otherwise eliminated)

    20. Re:Done in response to this video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you stupid ? At least they should be a threat to something else than the sniper, the guy was shot in the back while walking.

    21. Re:Done in response to this video by SharpFang · · Score: 2

      Goddamned campers, annoying IRL too.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    22. Re:Done in response to this video by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Normally civilians and protests are dealt with by police, not military, trained to deal with unarmed civilians, exacly because the military is not trained for that, they at trained for strongly armed confrontation, basically for killing, not repressing. But this being a dictatorship that is defending itself, they would easily go way overboard, and put military on the streets.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    23. Re:Done in response to this video by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      The problem with 'the right to bear arms' as most Americans imagine it is that they imagine it is an effective check on tyrannical practices from their own government.

      Sure, the average American can own a pistol, shotgun, sniper rifle, AM rifle, even an AR or SMG in some cases. The Army has all of those plus vehiclular armour, air support, artillery, scadloads of training in group combat operations, etc. In any matchup between the US military (even reserves) and an angry band of civilians (even assuming some leavening of that band by ex-military personnel), the citizen-rebels would come off the worst. The military has better recce gear, communications, airborne and satellite intel, and piles of airborne manned and unmanned weapons platforms.

      Arms simply mean that there would be asymetric hazards to a government attempt to apply tyrannical power in particular localities. But you will notice that the US Army seems more than capable of continuing operations despite a mounting death and injury toll in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if the American populace resorted to suicide bombing and other wonderful tactics, the Army could sustain operations against a hostile civilian fringe element. The most civilians could do is make it expensive (which is the root of asymetric warfare in truth).

      Bearing arms in America might help protect your home from an intruder. It might help protect your farm animals or pets from a marauding mountain lion, bear, wolves or the like. It won't do much to stop the world's biggest, best trained, best equipped military force.

      The only thing that would win that battle is convincing large parts of the US Army not to heed dictatorial orders. Fortunately for everyone, the US Army is a strong defender of the US Constitution. That's the greatest secret to domestic democracy in the US.

      And note that in other places in the world, if you could convince the hostile army or police to not support despotic orders, the same result would ensue. Arms borne by the citizens are at most a peripheral issue here.

      Note that places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq have a very large % of the populace having access to firearms. That has not made them historically safe from despotism and arming the citizenry has not been the path to glorious democracy and peace. Similarly, an armed populace in the US is not half as important as a vigilant populace willing to lay down their lives in the belief that they should be free. At most, arming them makes them more of a thorn. The attitude itself is what keeps America free.

      Arms by themselves don't solve the problem. Attitude and a willingness to die for the right things helps keep tyrants in check. Arms are just one tool and not the most important one.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    24. Re:Done in response to this video by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      The video was taken Thursday, but it is not clear when it was posted

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    25. Re:Done in response to this video by metacell · · Score: 1

      A city with protesters, or even with a riot, is not a "war zone". A guy who is standing in clear sight on a street and bends down to pick up a small, unknown object is not a "sniper".

      The rules of war do not apply when the military is trying to control protesting civilians. In a war, you're allowed to kill enemy combatants regardless of whether they're a threat to you right now (since enemy combatants will just come back and kill you tomorrow), but you're only allowed to use enough force to avert the immediate threat when dealing with civilians in peace time. And rightly so.

    26. Re:Done in response to this video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternate way to shut down a government -- just get everyone in the country at once to stop paying taxes and to use a barter system or gold/silver instead of a fiat currency.

    27. Re:Done in response to this video by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Video was posted 1 am, Friday, Cairo time according to the time stamp on the original video provided by Google Search:

      Associated Press Online Video Network
              14 hours ago - AP draws on its worldwide staff of journalists to create authoritative video clips of international and national events. Live streaming, raw video, ...
              video.ap.org/?f=None&pid=oT7qj_wiVHTbYae3scwok4_irYjJ2R8Z

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    28. Re:Done in response to this video by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I don't see how this person could have been perceived as a threat, to the sniper. Not "threatening the sniper" but perceived as a threat. Perhaps he was someone "important" in some way?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    29. Re:Done in response to this video by Enigma23 · · Score: 1

      Snipers always shoot people who aren't a threat to the sniper themselves. That's what they are for.

      Blatantly untrue. Most decently trained military Snipers (and I've no doubt that Egyptian Snipers come into this category) are taught counter-sniping strategy and tactics so that they, and the rest of their force, are not harassed, injured or killed by opposition sniping from a distance.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une .sig
    30. Re:Done in response to this video by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Yes, which is why I didn't say "only shoot". But for some reason you seem to have added some words to your interpretation.

      Obviously they also shoot people who are a threat to them - not doing so would be pretty damn stupid after all.

    31. Re:Done in response to this video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He definitely wasn't some innocent harmless victim. At the beginning of the video I saw, the man was throwing a rock at the police. We tend to think of rock-throwing protesters as harmless compared to riot-gear-laden police, but if you get hit in the head with one of these things it can kill you. That's why they used to stone people in biblical days. So he threw a rock, retreated, stopped to pick up another rock and turned around apparently looking for another target to throw his rock at and they shot him before he could do so. I'm not saying "he deserved it," but he's an idiot. He attacked the police with a deadly weapon and was about to do so again, they defended themselves against his potentially lethal attack with potentially lethal force. It would have been more appropriate if they had used a rubber bullet or bean bag. If a man runs onto the White House grounds throwing large rocks at people because he disagrees with the president's policies, he'd be shot before he could get close to the building, and everyone would say he was a moron, not an innocent victim, and there would be no outrage over it. (Posting as AC because I don't want some radical marking me for death for "justifying the killing" of whoever this guy was... not worth the karma)

    32. Re:Done in response to this video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasnt a threat to anyone, he was nobody. Now, dead he has become a threat to their government. A hero, one more democracy martyr against tyranny.

    33. Re:Done in response to this video by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      It's also bloody effective in scaring the locals into staying indoors and out of opposition rallies.

      And Bolton et al have the gall to say that if we don't support Mubarak we'll be allowing a radical Islamist regime to take over? Just who do they think are employing terrorist tactics here? What the fuck!?

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  10. Internet kill switch by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doesn't this make you want to have an internet kill switch in the US?

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Internet kill switch by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

      I would be really surprised if we don't already have one.

    2. Re:Internet kill switch by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

      No.
          An internet kill switch violates Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14. Most importantly: 10. (Congress shall exercise no power not granted to it by the states.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:Internet kill switch by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      You have several, unless your ISP has the exclusive franchise in the area

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Internet kill switch by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And that's stopped Congress... when?

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    5. Re:Internet kill switch by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I would be really surprised if we don't already have one.

      We have one, but the government isn't in control of it. The organization in control of it is the same as the one that is mostly in control of the government.

      Due to the effect pulling the switch would have on the economy, it probably won't be pulled unless/until the powers that be are finally ready to attempt to discredit the US government or chief executive, in order to install a takeover (non-democratic) government.

    6. Re:Internet kill switch by mysidia · · Score: 1

      An internet kill switch violates Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14. Most importantly: 10. (Congress shall exercise no power not granted to it by the states.)

      The FCC has indicated in the past that all communications on the internet are inherently interstate commerce.

      The constitution provides teh government the authority to regulate said commerce as they see fit.

      However; I think it's naive to believe the kill switch is in the hands of the US government.

      There are a variety of different kill switches in different shadowy organizations' hands.

    7. Re:Internet kill switch by the_raptor · · Score: 1

      They already have an Internet kill switch. It is called the US Army.

      At worst they can take the major hubs and fracture the internal US internet and cut foreign links. In reality US Army National Guard units would quickly be in control of every minor ISP within days.

      The "internet kill switch" proposal was just security theater. You are kidding yourself if you think Governments haven't had these kinds of communication seizure plans for many decades (they rounded up Ham equipment in WWI and WWII in most places).

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    8. Re:Internet kill switch by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I've always believed that the government existed more as a barrier between the people in charge and the people they are ruling. Removing them would be like firing your spokesmen and taking the job yourself. You might fire them to get another spokesmen, but you certainly wouldn't fire them in order to let people see how things really work.

    9. Re:Internet kill switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For sure and the cb, ham, and bbs will be what's left if we are lucky, after these fucking terrorist oath breaking citizen hating soul-less leaders are finished with the citizens.

    10. Re:Internet kill switch by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      I would be really surprised if we don't already have one.

      While I too don't entirely doubt that there's a means of cutting off all outbound communications from the USA (even sending orbiting satellites into 'sleep' mode would hamper communications pretty effectively), the flip side is that the government hasn't yet stated that there is, and by pulling it, they acknowledge they have it. It's a bomb they can only ever drop once, lest the entire structure of the internet change to work around it, and 'pirate isps' start popping up that are beyond their control.

    11. Re:Internet kill switch by Mysteray · · Score: 1
      Haha, they'd better be sure to phone and email their reserves and tell them to show up for that mission _before_ they take out the ISPs. They'd also better order some extra food ahead of time because those distribution channels are going down too.

      There's probably nothing that could hamper a US mobilization more at this point than doing what Egypt is doing.

    12. Re:Internet kill switch by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      The 10th amendment is completely ignored this day in age. Which is really a pity, because prohibition is pretty clearly violating it (the interstate commerce clause is extended in order to justify... you know what? look it up. Its bullshit.)

    13. Re:Internet kill switch by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      Also it would piss off every business in the country, what with all the cash flowing through them pipes, and the gov (both in the US and here in the UK) would NEVER do that

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    14. Re:Internet kill switch by h00manist · · Score: 1

      It's generally not hard to make something NOT work.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    15. Re:Internet kill switch by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      People keep saying that, but I think many miss the fact, that very significant component of all those Twitter/Facebook powered revolution is appealing to the world (and by world I mean Western coutnries, and by Western countries I mean US - the only power capable of do what they want internationally, except "israel", of course, which power is regional), so the "world" can put some screws on the mischievous government.

      That component would be completely missing if US government uses the Internet switch. In fact, the fact that it has not been used means mostly exactly that: US government feels invincible internationally - they can "sneeze down" on any other country or all of them combined - there was, there is and there will be zero reaction to world condemnation of anything that US does.

      As for Americans themselves - they are not hungry enough, jobless enough, desperate enough to finish what from time to time still happens in US: violent protests (nowadays, exclusively when Gx (x=8,20, etc) happens).

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    16. Re:Internet kill switch by metacell · · Score: 1

      Data is sent through transoceanic cables these days - the government have to shut down the earth-bound access points in and out of the country to effectively put a lid on the Internet. I'm not sure being a pirate ISP would help against that - couldn't the government just go to the telecommunications carrier that owns the physical cables and ask them to pull the switch?

    17. Re:Internet kill switch by ViperOrel · · Score: 1

      If it were possible to kill the internet in the US by taking over, destroying or infiltrating one organization or facility, wouldn't that constitute internet FAIL?

      Isn't one of the core properties of the internet that it is built to be indestructible? So, yeah, Egypt has only a few lines going into the country and they can cut those off, but I doubt they've even managed to totally shut down their own internet completely... and they're a dictatorship.

    18. Re:Internet kill switch by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "even sending orbiting satellites into 'sleep' mode would hamper communications pretty effectively"

      You are overestimating the importance of those satelites. Submarine cables are way more important than them.

    19. Re:Internet kill switch by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      It's cute that you think there isn't one.

    20. Re:Internet kill switch by Chriscypher · · Score: 1

      Doesn't this make you want to have an internet kill switch in the US?

      Mr. President, we must not allow a kill switch gap!

      --
      "You have liberated me from thought."
    21. Re:Internet kill switch by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      History has shown that the major US telecoms are willing to work with with the executive branch of the US government. Though this involvement, the government has been able to monitor all incoming and outgoing communications from the country since the '90s. They also have in place a massive wiretapping program to monitor the communications of individuals in the US, and have shown a willingness to do so regardless of the legality of intercepting such communication . Given that they have the ability to intercept any hard-line/satellite/cellular communication at will, it is reasonable to assume they may also have the capability to cut such communication. Even HAM radio operators could be shut down (although it would be difficult), since the military has weapons systems capable of jamming radio signals.

    22. Re:Internet kill switch by Kage-Yojimbo · · Score: 1

      YES an Internet kill switch is EXACTLY what we need.

      We want one to isolate US networks from external attacks. Like the type we expect to get from China. Russian botnets are the source of most of the spam and worm attacks.

      Have you any idea what a Stuxnet type of attack can do to the American power grid / pipeline systems / water systems?

      Just ask people in Belarus or Georgia if they'd like to have had a way to isolate from the internet when the hard rain came down on them...

    23. Re:Internet kill switch by benyahuda · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. With COICA the Obama administration will have one. Actually, COICA hasn't even passed yet and ICE (a division of the Department of Homeland Security) have already been taking down entire domains for about a month now. I guess they have learned something from Iran after all. And no, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I get my info from real news outlets and from communications with my states Senators.

      --
      Toda rabbah
    24. Re:Internet kill switch by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Don't tempt them to pass a "we have the right to kill the Internet" amendment.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  11. Blackberry too by cranky_chemist · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the LA Times, they've blocked the Blackberries, too.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/01/blackberry-internet-blocked-in-egypt.html

    1. Re:Blackberry too by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      Is the BlackBerry Internet different from the Internet the rest of us use? Any country that attempts to block "the Internet" has to block all egress points for it to be effective.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    2. Re:Blackberry too by EricX2 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing they also blocked internet on iPhones and Androids. Oh wait, it's the same internet, duh. No offense, but why is that informative?

    3. Re:Blackberry too by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Just goes to show the value of free access to encrypted Blackberry communication, whether in Egypt, or in Dubai, India, China, or even the US and Canada. There should be concessions to governments on that front.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    4. Re:Blackberry too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't access a video at that link on Chrome or IE8. Does it still exist at that location? Any mirror URLs?

  12. Just remember this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When Obama or the next fascist President wants an "Internet Kill Switch".

    1. Re:Just remember this by gearloos · · Score: 1, Funny

      +1000 Mod this up!

      --
      "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
    2. Re:Just remember this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      No one wants the internet kill switch, that much is certain. But WOW are you a moron for implying fascism in Obama or "the next fascist President". You think GWB wouldn't be lobbying for an internet kill switch right now too? Yeah f*cking right.

    3. Re:Just remember this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      What is it that makes you fucking idiots think Obama is in any way fascist? I hope you get murdered.

    4. Re:Just remember this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, of course he is! The definition of fascist is "someone who disagrees with you", right? Same way how "Nazi" means "one who partakes in activities with which you disagree". Pay attention sometime, you might learn Internet English.

    5. Re:Just remember this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it that makes you fucking idiots think Obama is in any way fascist?

      He wants a pairing of government and the means of production. He's either a fascist or a communist.

      I hope you get murdered.

      It seems the Democrat rhetorical style is improving.

    6. Re:Just remember this by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could have just said 'When next President wants an "Internet Kill Switch"' but you had to make it about your political views and not the larger, more important issue. This is a real problem with discourse in the U.S. these days. It is about "which side you are on" and not the discussion of the big issues. I think most citizens agree that an "Internet Kill Switch" is a very bad idea. But our problems keep getting worse because we are constantly distracted by political nonsense and polarizing language and cannot focus on the issue at hand. Let's focus on what's important.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    7. Re:Just remember this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you seriously think there isn't one already?

    8. Re:Just remember this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called the Cybersecurity act, and unfortunately, with a name like that most citizens would support it. People are polarised that's just the way it is. Don't listen tot he propaganda.

    9. Re:Just remember this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the word "fascist" doesn't say anything about political viewpoint any more. It's merely a derogatory term which most people that use it don't even know the original meaning.

  13. This will help by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sure that nobody will be angry or suspicious about the internet going dark. I expect nothing but butterflies and rainbows from this.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:This will help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rofl.

    2. Re:This will help by tivoKlr · · Score: 2

      Unicorns? Can we please have at least one unicorn?

      --
      Ocean is land, covered with water.
    3. Re:This will help by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Oh they're not worried about angry people. They're more worried about what you'll do. Friday is the weekend in Egypt and is supposed to be their big day of protests. They hope that by cutting off the internet, people won't be able to know where to meet up for the rallies and demonstrations, and people won't be able to share videos of the protests.

    4. Re:This will help by smitty97 · · Score: 5, Funny

      This will help with the IPv4 address pool problem too

      --
      mod me funny
    5. Re:This will help by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      Unicorns? Can we please have at least one unicorn?

      Sure. All you can eat!

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    6. Re:This will help by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Still pretty stupid. If they really do manage a million person demonstration, there's no need to advertise its location. It will be EVERYWHERE. As for video sharing, just store it on your PC or phone and upload it later. Unless Egypt plans to keep the Internet off indefinitely, in which case they're totally screwed.

    7. Re:This will help by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Oh they're not worried about angry people. They're more worried about what you'll do. Friday is the weekend in Egypt and is supposed to be their big day of protests. They hope that by cutting off the internet, people won't be able to know where to meet up for the rallies and demonstrations, and people won't be able to share videos of the protests.

      They're obviously not US trained in people-pacifying. If they were, they'd know to redirect connections to one-way-communications entertainment sites with Disney games, gambling and porn.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    8. Re:This will help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How angry will they get when they can't get to Facebook?

  14. "Egypt Shuts Off All land-based Internet Access" by zill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Satellite ISPs may be expansive, but they are the only solution in extreme cases such as this one.

  15. The reason they had to do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is they are planning a massacre in the country, and don't want any information in or out...

    Note: Disturbing video of sniper shooting demonstrator
    see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XnhHzs91MY

    1. Re:The reason they had to do that... by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is why we need a real media, instead of following the current trend of bloggers covering news while the established media cover entertainment and punditry. Because without real reporters over there, there's no way to figure out what happened during a blackout. Local bloggers can be cut off, and when the lights come back on, who's to say what happened? Whereas disappearing a reporter for the NY Times would just invite more scrutiny.

      Of course, it's all contingent on the established media putting aside their profit margins for a moment. Reporters are expensive, and don't get the ratings that star watches and manufactured controversy pull in.

    2. Re:The reason they had to do that... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      disappearing a reporter for the NY Times would just invite more scrutiny.

      So don't dissapear them, just ban them from the country. Those who decide to stay anyway and get caught can be "legitimately" thrown in prison for a long time.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    3. Re:The reason they had to do that... by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      The problem is when is not information, but opinion what goes in, that intentionally or not worsen the actual situation. Nobody dies for lack of internet access (ok, is not so absolute that), but a lot could if people (from outside or inside) somehow incitates a revolt. Won't be a very popular measure, but people should calm down before this ends in a bloodbath.

    4. Re:The reason they had to do that... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      maybe it's just my source of media, but, Rachel Maddow did a piece on the situation on the ground and is continuing coverage with various sources on the ground.

      I'd say NBC news is "established media." They have sources on the ground in Cairo. I'm pretty sure Reuters and AP have sources on the ground as well.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  16. Re:Who is responsible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before jumping to conclusions, double check these things. If it's backbone connections being shut down, it's entirely possible that Vodafone in Egypt don't directly peer to anyone outside the country and thus aren't responsible.

  17. More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than... by ron_ivi · · Score: 5, Funny

    More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than from Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

    (but of course one shouldn't extrapolate too much from a sample of 1 data point)

    1. Re:More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than... by Exclamation+mark! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's ok, the press and most scientists do it all the time

      --
      I'm a wanker.... and loving it!
    2. Re:More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many more were from the USA (actually the ones who brought down the buildings).

    3. Re:More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Exactly: Mohammed Atta is a data point, not a trend.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    4. Re:More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter where they were from. They were still payed handsomely by the US government.

    5. Re:More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists don't do this. Press does it to scientific papers.

      You have study like "In a study of these 10 patients having this unique condition Q, herbal tea X increased their cognitive function by 2-5%". And then you have your news article, "Herbal tea X the new brain food? Scientists confirm in this landmark study!"

      You also have 99% of scientists agree that humans are driving force of global warming. But then press says "we need opposing view points for proper discussion, so the public can decide whom is correct".

      A little more respect for the researchers please. Don't lump them in with the "press" like Fox News or Left Wing Daily.

    6. Re:More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fooled you; it's impossible to extrapolate from one data point.

    7. Re:More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you extrapolate that conclusion from a single scientist and a single newspaper?

    8. Re:More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than... by jackspenn · · Score: 1

      Are we talking about junk science in general or global warming specifically?

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    9. Re:More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than from Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

      (but of course one shouldn't extrapolate too much from a sample of 1 data point)

      http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/egypt/110101/coptic-christian-bomb-attack-cairo-egypt-qaeda-alexandria
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_massacre

      The recent problems were ostensibly over the permanent "state of emergency" (sound familiar?) keeping Mubarak in power, but they were organized by the Muslim Brotherhood, so I can't really sympathize with them.

    10. Re:More 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt than... by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Of course, by that standard the US should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. But for some reason, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush family being longtime friends of both the Saudi royal family and co-investers of the Saudi-based bin Laden Group, Bush decided to pick on somebody else.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  18. dupe by kobach · · Score: 0

    why is this story on the front page like 4 times?

  19. Wrote about this in 2006... by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wrote the following back in 2006. At the time, I was mostly writing about the invasion of Iraq, and the saber-rattling with Iran, but it turns out to say a lot about other places too.

    ==================

    Suppose, for the moment, that spreading American values — by which I mean democracy, freedom of expression, and social mobility — throughout the globe is a good idea. How do we achieve that?

    Let’s take a look at our enemies, and see what they fear about the U.S. Yes, our military might is kinda scary, but we’ve shown again and again that as a nation we lack the commitment (by which I mean “tyrannical jack-booted disregard for human life”) to use it effectively. What else have we got? A giant market economy focusing mostly on communication, entertainment, personal expression, and self-improvement, which the world’s dictators, religious fanatics, and thugs see as hedonistic, socially disruptive, and downright insidious.

    Damn right it’s insidious. And we ought to be insidiating like crazy. The requirements for democracy and social mobility are communication, a sense of personal self-worth, and an active free-market economy. Our pop culture, and the stuff we sell, are our best tools for sneaking these values into societies, under the noses of the dictators and the zealots.

    What better tools for personal expression than the cell phone and the Internet blog? What better way to get uncensored information about the world than the satellite dish? What better tools for demonstrating the joy of self-determination than the hit TV show and the Hollywood blockbuster? What better role model for oppressed women than the stars of CSI and ER? Hell, what better role model for what a police force should be than CSI? And what better motivation for starting your own business (black-market or legit), for getting a leg up, than the need to pay for all this crap?

    Maybe the Cold War wasn’t won by geopolitics. Maybe it was won by black-market Levi’s blue jeans and bootleg copies of “Born in the USA” by Bruce Springsteen. Maybe our best hope for eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat isn’t B-2s dropping bombs, but FedEx cargo planes dropping cell phones and laptops. Actually, the world is doing a pretty good job in bombing Iran’s youth with pop culture; maybe all we need to do is sit back, sell more phones, and wait for their oppressive government to be swept aside, or simply ignored and rendered obsolete, by the new Coke generation.

    *That’s* what they fear about us. Not that we’ll bomb them into oblivion, but that their own kids, raised on our pop culture, will vote them off the island.

    ================

    I want to emphasize that this is about spreading American *values*, not American hegemony. The Egyptian riots are a problem for America as an empire, but if we play it right it can be a huge win for American ideals.

    1. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      Cultural imperialism is just as bad as economic imperialism. And you know what makes economic imperialism possible in the first place? A free market economy.

    2. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh noes! The Cultural Imperialism, they will end up being able to vote, have women that are educated and maybe even the Joe Sixpack of Egypt would be able to live a pretty decent life. Some peoples cultures suck, face it.

    3. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by lehphyro · · Score: 1

      Leave them solve this by themselves. You have a huge amount of work to solve US problems already.

    4. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *That’s* what they fear about us. Not that we’ll bomb them into oblivion, but that their own kids, raised on our pop culture, will vote them off the island.

      What American ideals exactly? Democracy?

      Hosni Mubarak is in power because he is backed by the USG, and does mostly what USG wants i.e. restricts the southern Gaza border which assists in the Israeli blockade. Do. You. Comprende?

      Remember American ideals promote freedom of the internet - unless of course you are Wikileaks. In which case its a kinda Chinese interpretation of freedom.

      And refering to CSI or ER as examples of freedom/American values?

      You Sir, are an idoit.

    5. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thomas Jefferson said the same thing almost 200 years ago. The US will be an example to the rest of the world of how a free people can prosper and enjoy life, and people around the globe will rise-up and throw-off their shackles.

      The only part of the equation he was missing was the use of books, movies, and music as the enticement to make people say, "I want what the US has."

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by goodmanj · · Score: 2

      > What American ideals exactly? Democracy?

      Yes, and freedom of speech, equal rights for all, and government without corruption. Keep in mind these are *ideals*, which we don't always live up to. I'm well aware that my country is propping up some shitty people, and doing some shitty things with its military. My post is a call for us to stop the realpolitik and let the world see more of our liberties and less of our guns.

      And yes, I do believe that our technology and our pop culture embodies our values, both noble and inane, and that the spread of that technology and culture can do good in the world. Many in the US and abroad now believe the US is entirely corrupt and entirely hypocritical. I see the hypocrisy, but I believe America's heart hasn't completely shriveled to dust.

    7. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I totally disagree that economic imperialism requires a free market economy. Look at the economic dominance of Russia, Imperial China, or Rome over their neighbors, as a counterexample. Big economies will always influence small ones, no matter how they're run. It's true that the free market helps *make* economies big, but opposing the free market for that reason is like starving your own child to keep him from being big enough to bully the other kids.

      I also reject the idea that cultural imperialism is always bad. Some notions, such as liberty, democracy, civil rights and universal education, really *are* worth spreading. Cultural relativism is a great principle, but I refuse to take it to such an extreme that we "celebrate the difference" of cultures which value dictatorship and genocide.

    8. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by trawg · · Score: 1

      I would rather airdrop them the tools with a view to giving them an education that is focused on critical thinking, and then let the chips fall where they may.

      The spread of "American ideals" is probably scary to a lot of people (like me) that live outside of the USA, because to us all we get to see is unjust wars, your politicians and laws being bought and sold while your citizenry ignores it, attempts by the religious right to cloud your educational system, and so forth. I know that's (probably) not what you mean, but ... here we are.

    9. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Veramocor · · Score: 1

      What better role model for oppressed women than the stars of CSI and ER? Hell, what better role model for what a police force should be than CSI?

      ENHANCE!

      --
      Veramocor
    10. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo.

    11. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are very right.

    12. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by kbahey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I will give you the vote part. We do have voting in Egypt, but the elections are predetermined, with a combination of ballot stuffing, intimidation and exclusion.

      Decent life is what we are after. So on that I agree too.

      Now regarding women and education, you are wrong. Orders of magnitudes wrong. My mother, who is in her late 70s now got a higher degree back in the 50s. Two of my maternal aunts got masters degrees and then PhDs (one from the USA, the other from Japan). Two of my aunts from my paternal sides got bachelors degrees and worked too. My wife is a computer engineer.

      Should I go on?

    13. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Resist the impulse to assume the riots in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen are all about the USA. I guarantee you, the people on the streets of these countries by and large don't want to live in America or a make their country more like the US in general. They have their own values and desires that you might find surprising.

      Also, the frustrations behind a public uprising like this derive from specific grievances. These people aren't taking a stand on principle. They're feeling their power as a group of angry people. If these protests succeed in exiling leaders or overturning governments, that change wont reflect the outcome of a democratic process. It will be the result of mob rule. True self-governance takes a longer to develop and doesn't necessarily follow from a public uprising.

      What we know most about right now is what the rioters are against: autocratic and corrupt government. Let's say they share those values with Hamas, the the Peasants and Workers Party of India, the government of Somaliland, Wikileaks, the US State Department, and the Tea Party. It's much more important, however, what they're for. Whether that means they support -- to take ideas from the parent post -- democracy, free markets, pop-culture, and free expression more than do the leaders they oppose, remains to be seen.

    14. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Of course they're not about the USA. But as an American citizen, I care about my country's relationship to these events. The point is that it's American inventions (Internet) that enabled this, not American intervention, which should make us Americans rethink the relative value of these two things. I don't much care if the Egyptians try to make their country more like the U.S. or not: the mere fact that they're using tools that enable unrestricted free speech almost *guarantees* that their society will shift in a direction favorable to U.S. values ... though perhaps not U.S. imperial interests.

    15. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn Straight. Any Civilization fanatic knows that culture is a key part of world domination!

    16. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We bombed laos to smithereens, we do have the commitment to, just not the organisation or ruthless in person generals.

    17. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      I suspect the truth is they hate that the west supports corrupt regimes, if Mubarek falls, chances are fundamentalists will take over - they will no doubt oppose western ideals. Since the west (not just the U.S.) has been propping up the current corrupt authoritarian regime for the last 30 years, we are tainted by the actions of this regime - the same thing happened in Iran, it appears to be happening in Afghanistan and possibly in Iraq.
      I sincerely hope we (the west) press for radical reform in Egypt and support the people rather than corrupt heads of state. I for one do not want our governments covering up for despots.

      --
      BM3
    18. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by goodmanj · · Score: 2

      I think he wasn't referring specifically to Egypt, but to a whole spectrum of states with varying degrees of lack of liberty. We all understand that Egypt is quite a ways up from Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, especially regarding women.

    19. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      You damn younguns with your Civilization IV and your "cultural victory". Back in my day, there was only one way to win civilization:

      Build the Pyramids
      Get democracy
      Buy lots and lots of tanks

      Hey, wait a second, Egypt's coming along nicely now that I think about it.

    20. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by kvezach · · Score: 1

      Suppose, for the moment, that spreading American values — by which I mean democracy, freedom of expression, and social mobility — throughout the globe is a good idea. How do we achieve that?

      For being a country that values social mobility, the US could surely do better than it is already doing. In economic matters, the US economic inequality (Gini coefficient) is among the upper values for the developed world (at 46 compared to about 25-35 for the Western European nations). In other matters, the picture is not as rosy, either.

      Thus I doubt that the United States would be good at spreading what you're calling American values - since the government does not practice what it preaches even at home.

    21. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      You were and are quite right in my opinion.

      The single most powerful weapon at the U.S's disposal is the internet. Since the U.S has the most influence on the internet and the most content out there, it follows that simply encouraging other countries to ramp up broadband penetration via subsidies, foreign aid and such makes the cultural values embedded in the media produced flow like a torrent (no pun intended). Video, text, audio, decentralized communication and publishing are the tools of soft power for the united states.

      More internet = more american influence. The taliban understood this very well.

      I'm speaking as an arab-american. I've lived this stuff so I know it works.

    22. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose, for the moment, that spreading American values — by which I mean democracy, freedom of expression, and social mobility — throughout the globe is a good idea.

      Whoa there. I think it's obvious that Finnish values, by which I mean things like democracy, social mobility and freedom of expression would be much more benign.

      But the most important thing is to make sure the Swedes, with their liberal 'social mobility, democracy and freedom of expression' bullshit are excluded. Also the French 'freedom of expression, democracy and social mobility' are a scourge on this Earth!

    23. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      Although I will give you that there was some though as to the importance of ties from economics and culture and the spread of ideas, I will also have to chide you for expropriation and egocentrism.

      "Freedom", "Democracy" and "Social Mobility" are hardly uniquely American values. In fact, the modern American body politic would have you think that Freedom had been deleted from the list of American values and that Democracy wasn't too important either. Social mobility, the statisticians tell us, is way down and is the middle class is fading away as the disparities between the really rich and 'everybody else' continues to grow.

      So, you have claimed as "American" the values that America doesn't seem to champion as much as it once did, while grandly ignoring the elder democracies of the world. I'm pretty sure Democracy is a Greek word originally (or from a Greek root). I'm fairly certain Britain had a parliament long before the US came into existence. I'm also reasonably certain there are about 15-20 European countries that could lay claim to believing in the values you claim as American. If one looks at the Dutch outlook on soft drugs or the German outlook on personal privacy or various European systems that do better at representing the popular vote than the US system, one might conclude much of Europe may actually be at least as interested in those values as modern day America.

      Beyond that, there's a little country to the North of America that happens to be reasonably good at Democracy, Freedom and Social Mobility. It often gets forgotten, getting the limelight only when the US free market system is busy crashing and burning (printing money like the supply of rag or digital bits was unlimited).

      Oh, and while I'm mentioning others who might just have as much claim to those values, let's add New Zealand and Australia. And that's only the places I'm really comfortable with putting on the list - there are some other candidates that are at least aspiring to that list of attributes.

      How about we call them what they rightly are: Western Values? They are common in most countries of the West.

      I know that America prides itself on these being its core values, even if they are more honoured in the breech than the observance of late. Canadians have similar misconceptions about themselves where it comes to our role in Peacekeeping and UN participation (formerly quite large, but nearly non-existent the last decade or so). People tend to think of themselves as embodying a value as a people because that's what they're taught in school - and that's because it used to be that way, so then it becomes school curriculum, regardless of what the current facts on the ground may indicate.

      All complaint aside, your post had a solid thesis IMO.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    24. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dreamer wrote:

      "The Egyptian riots are a problem for America as an empire, but if we play it right it can be a huge win for American ideals."

      Please wake up, dear dreamer.

      The moslem world is very, and I repeat, VERY different from your Western democracy.

      The current regime might not be ideal, as per your Western democratic value, but whatever replaces it might be A LOT WORSE.

      And the thing is, this has happened before, in Iran.

    25. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The requirements for democracy and social mobility are communication, a sense of personal self-worth, and an active free-market economy

      Yes, just imagine if the representatives chosen by the population decided to implement a planned economy! The horror! That would be so undemocratic!!
      Even worse would be if after elections, the newly chosen representatives were to confirm this move to a planned economy. The horror of horrors!!onehundredandbang!
      </sarcasm>
      Seriously, sometimes I get the idea that for some people, free market == democracy.
      Guess what: free market is one approach to economics (which is not necessarily as great as you'd like to believe). Democracy is one approach to establishing a governing body.
      I do not see a need for anybody who is democratic to mandatorily subscribe to the concept of the free market.

      It reminds me of your last sentence:
      it seems you fear that your own kids, raised on free exchange of ideas, will vote the idea of a free market into the trash bin.

      I don't -- that's what democracy is about: the will of the people. Not "the will of the people PLUS mandatory free market", no, just plain and simple: the will of the people.

    26. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly why I don't believe we 'lost' the Vietnam War.

    27. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by jovius · · Score: 1

      Saying it that way is just another form of selfishness. American and European companies have been happy to sell equipment and tech to the Chinese and whoever to use against their own citizens. People wear jeans and drink sodas because they need clothes and are thirsty. Revolutions happen without internet and modern telecommunications.

      People are intelligent enough to realize that most what comes out of TV is unrealistic entertainment. There are no magical fixes. The reasons for revolting are social - hunger, poverty, unemployment. Along them come freedom of expression and other freedoms and other aspects, which stem from our very human nature, which we all share.

      Our consuming habits kill people other side of the globe. In essence the culture you are promoting is the source of many of today's problems. You are right in saying that maybe all we need to is sit back. That's what we have not done so far.

    28. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, didn't turn out to be true, did it? For the few hundred years after he said that, the only country that might fit Jefferson's hopeful criteria was Liberia -- and that was founded by people who had to leave America to be free. Meanwhile Americans wiped out the Indians and got started on the rest of the non-white planet, like the Philippines, except fortunately there wasn't too much left by the time they caught up with the Europeans on empire-building. For the century and a half after Jefferson's statement, the world aped the culture of the British (and the Germans and the French -- but of the 3, only the British were really a free people). Then in the twentieth century, as America grew rich and Europe lost its wealth -- surprise -- the world started aping American culture instead. And in all the intervening centuries, the only real freedom that's been spread in the world has been by 1. Empire and decolonisation (the British and French colonial empires), 2. bloody, murderous, foreign war (Western Europe), and 3. economic liberalisation (Eastern Europe and some of Latin America). Latin America is kind of a special case: a combination of revolution, foreign intervention, and unstable democracies dependent on prosperity. (You might say the same about most of Africa.)

      No, you'd be shocked at just how much foreign entertainment people can pick up and have their society's worldview untouched. I've seen it first-hand. The only way to get freedom and democracy to stick somewhere seems to me to have it established in a prosperous society for several generations, and keep some level of prosperity. Establishing it can be very hard: apart from war and empire, only gradual economic boosting and intervention seems to work, but it's so easy to get wrong. The EU might prove a good model of doing it right.

    29. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Enigma23 · · Score: 1

      I want to emphasize that this is about spreading American *values*, not American hegemony. The Egyptian riots are a problem for America as an empire, but if we play it right it can be a huge win for American ideals.

      Surely you meant to write "If the Egyptians play it right, it can be a huge win for them?"

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une .sig
    30. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      Essentially like winning Civilization 4 with culture.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    31. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thomas Jefferson said the same thing almost 200 years ago. The US will be an example to the rest of the world of how a free people can prosper and enjoy life, and people around the globe will rise-up and throw-off their shackles.

      Do you still believe this shit? If so, you are as much in the dark as most Egyptians.

    32. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      *Sigh*. It's gotten to the point where whenever an American speaks, everyone *assumes* we're being chauvinistic isolationist assholes even when we intend nothing of the sort.

      Of *course* the values I listed are not uniquely American. But I'm an American speaking to a mostly American audience, about how America should interact with the world. If I talk about the beautiful New England snowfall we had here yesterday, am I claiming that no other place on Earth has snow?

      And of *course* America doesn't always live up to those values. That's why they're values and not universal truths. But we still believe in them, and while we may be have slipped a bit lately in upholding them, our deviations are the exception, not the rule. Unfortunately, the countless successful acts of liberty, democracy, and social mobility occurring daily in the US don't make headlines. That doesn't excuse our failures, but to say we mainly honor our values in the breach is going too far.

    33. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I agree that we could do better at practicing what we preach, but I want to point out that social mobility is not the same as economic inequality.

      Imagine a society in which everyone earned the same wage, but had a rigid caste system: if your father was a toilet-scrubber, you'd be a toilet-scrubber for the rest of your days. Now imagine a society in which half the nation was penniless, while the other half were billionaires, but anyone who worked hard was guaranteed entry into the upper class, regardless of their father's position.

      True social mobility is difficult to measure demographically, because you need to track the social trajectory of individuals and families over time. And yeah, Americans aren't as socially mobile as they'd like to think, but the Gini index measures something completely different.

    34. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Ah, but "might" is the key word here. If we play it right, the Egyptian riots *might* be a huge win for American ideals. Or they might not. But if we play it wrong, by backing the tyrant as we did in Iran, we *guarantee* that whatever replaces it will be a lot worse from our perspective.

      The U.S. has almost no power to spin this event in our favor. But we have the absolute power to fuck it up.

    35. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      That's so obvious it's left unsaid. My comment was specifically about how the U.S. should approach the Egyptian issue, not about the events in general.

    36. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American values like "Freedom of expression" and "Democracy" sound rather ironic coming from a country that is
      -one of the few countries in the world that does not recognise the International Court of Law,
      -tries to stop whistleblowers rather than trying to prosecute injustice uncovered by whistleblowers,
      -has been involved in/started more wars than any other country since the 2nd WW
      -has tuppled several democratic elected governments in the last 60 years (Iran, Chili among others)
      -spies on its citizens

      Need I go on?

    37. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by psema4 · · Score: 1

      Thomas Jefferson said the same thing almost 200 years ago. The US will be an example to the rest of the world of how a free people can prosper and enjoy life, and people around the globe will rise-up and throw-off their shackles.

      Unfortunately freedom does not guarantee happiness and it comes in varying degrees; I'm sure there are many U.S. citizens who feel shackled in one form or another.

      The only part of the equation he was missing was the use of books, movies, and music as the enticement to make people say, "I want what the US has."

      In a way I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that all of your enticement is encumbered "intellectual property".

      "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jeffersen

    38. Re:Wrote about this in 2006... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to stress that these are not "American values": You learned them from Europe.

  20. Re:Who is responsible? by a.koepke · · Score: 1

    The telco may not be directly responsible. Vodafone would most likely purchase a link from one of the main telcos over there. If their provider cuts the connection then there is nothing they can do. Their network will function but traffic won't leave the network.

    --


    (\(\
    (^.^)
    (")")
    *This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
  21. satellite? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Tether a satellite phone?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats actually a good idea, but even with a quad bonded connection the best you could do is 100-200 kbps

    2. Re:satellite? by ischorr · · Score: 1

      So?

    3. Re:satellite? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Good enough for text.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  22. Satellite based internet or satphone(thuraya) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seriously doubt they could shut down a satellite based ISP or satphone based network. They could still RDF you and send the goon squad after you though. Sneakerneting microSD cards across the Sahara would be the safest route.

    Ah well, the foreign supported thugocracy couldn't last forever......or can it.

  23. The "Internet kill switch"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I suppose Mr. Obama wants an "internet kill switch" so that he can do the same?

    1. Re:The "Internet kill switch"? by goodmanj · · Score: 2

      I agree that this makes the "Internet kill switch" look even more jackbooted, but let's be clear on the politics here:

      While every headline on this issue has called it "Obama's Internet Kill Switch", the current legislation that would enact it was proposed by republican senator Susan Collins and security-crazy independent Joe Lieberman. There have been other proposals like it by both parties, but I have not been able to find a single statement by Obama or the White House in favor of this idea.

      As far as I can tell, this is a power Congress is trying to give the president, not one he's demanding for himself.

    2. Re:The "Internet kill switch"? by Gripp · · Score: 1

      this is exactly what i feared the moment i heard about a kill switch. its akin to how romans used to use water to control the populace.

      not to say that i think obama or any other president would ever abuse such power....... but its probably best that we dont even give them the chance. besides that, isn't bringing the internet kind of the main intent of such attacks?? how would a kill switch help anything.

  24. Revolution will not be televised. by headkase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or in today's language: the revolution will not be tweeted.

    Does anyone think it is still a good idea to give the President an "Internet Kill Switch"?
    Really, those in power tend to cling to it even if their forms are outmoded for the population they rule. I think our democracies only grow stronger through a little unrest and political replacement every once in a while. What do you think?

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Revolution will not be televised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      “Every generation needs a new revolution.”
      “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”
      - Thomas Jefferson

    2. Re:Revolution will not be televised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson.

    3. Re:Revolution will not be televised. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

      The one you created, Mr. Jefferson! It's now been 146 years since open rebellion or serious armed resistance took place in the U.S. Great work! But if you've created a country where armed revolt hasn't been necessary for a century and a half, something you considered impossible, maybe it's time to rethink the second part of your quote:

      Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?

    4. Re:Revolution will not be televised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think "political replacement" is the entire point of elections and term limits: to avoid (potentially violent) unrest through peaceful elections.

    5. Re:Revolution will not be televised. by FreedomToThink · · Score: 1

      It seems to me the threat of mass collaboration on anti government thoughts, is far more of an internet threat than internet terrorism, heaven forbid a vocal majority could ever form through the power of new media technology and actually try to influence the running of the country.

      Clearly to survive the ignorant masses governments need to be able to stop them communicating immediately when threatened.

      This doesn't apply to you, only the unwashed, or heretics, or heathens, but we can't filter who we turn it off for in an emergency.

      An internet kill switch is to protect the people.

      Honest.

    6. Re:Revolution will not be televised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone think it is still a good idea to give the President an "Internet Kill Switch"?

      A couple of years ago, I would have said that it's a bad idea. Now I think it is a good idea.

    7. Re:Revolution will not be televised. by fahlesr1 · · Score: 1

      I think our democracies only grow stronger through a little unrest and political replacement every once in a while. What do you think?

      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

      While I hope we can fix the problems in our government without bloodshed, I believe the general sentiment of Jefferson's comment applies. We do need some political replacement. As crazy as the Tea Party can be, I like the idea of voting for people with no previous political background and so I hope we get a significant minority of Tea Party candidates elected. Not enough to push something really stupid, but enough to challenge and expose the political rot at the heart of Washington.

    8. Re:Revolution will not be televised. by dubsnipe · · Score: 1

      Revolution may not be retweeted, but don't fret: it'll be found overseeded on some torrent site.

  25. I knew it- by gearloos · · Score: 5, Funny

    See what happens when you download too many copies of "The Mummy" ?

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
    1. Re:I knew it- by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      See what happens when you download too many copies of "The Mummy" ?

      They foolishly turn him loose, and spend the rest of the show hunting for his kill switch.

    2. Re:I knew it- by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      Gasp! You mean the RIAA shut down EGYPT!?

  26. ham radio by molo · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a couple options here. POTS modem is a decent choice for data, until it gets blocked. Satellite internet should work also, but could be subject to jamming. Shortwave radio to listen to international broadcasts (BBC World Service, VOA, Deutsche Welle, etc.) is a good option for receiving information and news. They could still jam broadcasters that they don't like (but hard to get all of them).

    Ham radio would be the best option, as it doesn't depend on anyone else's infrastructure, and equipment can be run from 12V batteries. Many frequency bands to choose from to avoid interference or jamming. Many digital modes can be used to relay articles, some with forward error correction. Voice modes are available for those without digital interfaces. Can be short range to arrange local protests if needed (VHF/UHF), possibly with a handheld transceiver. It can be long range on the HF bands (shortwave), potentially communicating over thousands of miles and across borders.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  27. STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by denzacar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Parent poster is handing out two, that's TWO generalizations for the price of one.
    If you comment now, he'll throw in FIIIIIVE unfounded accusations of your choice - PLUS "the works". Where else are you gonna get a deal like that?

    Coming up next - all Catholics are secretly pedophiles, Jews are stingy, blacks are lazy and women can't drive.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would agree, except you are wrong. To date, there is no moderate Muslim state. You are talking about individuals, he is talking about institutions.

      This isn't a slam against Islam, it is a slam against the governments that profess to follow Islam. He is correct, there is no progressive Muslim state. You only have two kinds of Muslim states in todays world: Oppressive, and Very Oppressive. As soon as the people start speaking out in any way, they ratchet up the oppression, like every other Muslim state. The problem isn't the religion, it is using the religion as a basis for a government.

      And before someone says "Turkey", they aren't a Muslim state, they are a secular state with a predominantly Muslim population.

      Sorry, but you aren't nearly as funny as a few hurried moderators think you are.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

      Don't be sexist. Women can't park. It's Asians that can't drive.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
    3. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey iknow some hard workin colored folk!

    4. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not so. To some degree, the term "Muslim state" is a misnomer. There are places like Jordan, Indonesia, Malaysia, all with varying degrees of public participation in government, and histories of suppression. Some are pretty dangerous, like Iran. Some seem secular, but are very willing to exploit indigenous peoples (Turkey and the Kurds and Armenians) as an example. But the US has done it, too, as a healthy portion of states have indigenous peoples reservations.

      There are lots of Muslims in Germany, but not enough to make a change in government. In Lebanon, it's been a mixed bag for decades now. For a short time, Lebanon was the beacon of multi-religious tolerance, Christian, Muslim, Druze, etc. Now, Hezbollah is calling the shots, perhaps firing them, too.

      Some Muslims argue that other ostensible Islamic factions aren't Muslim, are infidels, and treat them accordingly. It's a mess.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and women can't drive.

      but they can't.

    6. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I agree that women can't drive..the correct political incorrectness should read "all orientals can't drive"

    7. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 0

      I almost believed you but then I saw the German in your sig so now I know you're just racist.

    8. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent poster is handing out two, that's TWO generalizations for the price of one.

      I'm really not sure what you mean. Nobody is saying that all Muslims are "horrendous in one form or another." The assertion is that the GOVERNMENTS of Muslim countries have such traits. This isn't a generalization of a billion or more people, it's a generalization of a couple dozen governments, which startlingly enough, can actually be exhaustively verified. So put up, shut up, etc. Personally, I think you'll have quite some difficulty showing otherwise, given that Egypt indeed is considered one of the most progressive among the Muslim countries, and they've done this thing. So either the assumption that Egypt is near the top of the list is wrong, or the assumption that there is a Muslim government which isn't "horrendous" is wrong.

    9. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by jimmydevice · · Score: 0

      "Coming up next - all Catholics are secretly pedophiles, Jews are stingy, blacks are lazy and women can't drive."

      Talk about generalizations,
      1) All Catholic "priests" are secretly pedophiles
      2) All "Hasidic" Jews are stingy
      3) All "Ghetto" blacks are lazy.
      4) All "Oriental" women can't drive.
      FIFY

    10. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a black female Jew you insensitive clod!

    11. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it, women can't drive

    12. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree, except you are wrong. To date, there is no moderate Muslim state. You are talking about individuals, he is talking about institutions.

      This isn't a slam against Islam, it is a slam against the governments that profess to follow Islam. He is correct, there is no progressive Muslim state. You only have two kinds of Muslim states in todays world: Oppressive, and Very Oppressive. As soon as the people start speaking out in any way, they ratchet up the oppression, like every other Muslim state. The problem isn't the religion, it is using the religion as a basis for a government.

      And before someone says "Turkey", they aren't a Muslim state, they are a secular state with a predominantly Muslim population.

      Sorry, but you aren't nearly as funny as a few hurried moderators think you are.

      as my grandfather (an immigrant from Haiti.) is fond of saying: "if a government has control of its people than it is doing something evil!"
      in other words, we have no room to talk.

    13. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And before someone says "Turkey", they aren't a Muslim state, they are a secular state with a predominantly Muslim population.

      That has changed in the past decade. Turkey has been ruled by a religious party that has started to roll back Ataturk's reforms, aligned the state's foreign policy with Iran, and manufactured several diplomatic incidents with Israel to show how committed they are to the jihad to reestablish Islamic dominion over that part of the world. Turkey might be officially secular, just like they are also officially allies of Israel. In practice, they are the opposite.

    14. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by blind+biker · · Score: 2

      And before someone says "Turkey", they aren't a Muslim state, they are a secular state with a predominantly Muslim population.

      Turkey, right. A country where all independent media has been shut down (with "tax irregularities" excuses), Youtube was banned up until recently, Islamist demagogy is on the rise and mentioning the Armenian genocide will get you arrested.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    15. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by gibbsjoh · · Score: 1

      The rise of Islamist parties notwithstanding Turkey IS a secular state, and the armed forces have stepped in 3 times in the past to ensure it stays that way. They're not perfect but they are one of 2 actual democracies in the Middle East.

      Bear in mind there are laws in various EU countries regarding WW2 so the (admittedly wrong) Turkish law about the Armenian genocide isn't all that unique.

      JG

      --
      -- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
    16. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      That army stepping in was before Erdogan came to power. His Islamist rhetoric is poisoning Turksih relations with the West, his party has reversed various secular policies already, and the trend is bound to continue, as Erdogan is unopposed. As I said, Turkey has no free media to challenge the current dictatorship.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    17. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by mijelh · · Score: 1

      There are lots of Muslims in Germany, but not enough to make a change in government

      Every individual votes for whatever he/she wants, so being Muslim does not imply voting for a Muslim party. You seem to think that the only way Muslims can change the government is towards a Muslim government. That's not the case. Maybe they *ARE* affecting the government right now: maybe they vote more conservative than most Germans, or maybe more liberal.

    18. Re:STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      I didn't say the votes didn't count. I said that their voting seems to have a nominal influence, and there are very few Islamic focused issues in local, regional, or national debates.

      The same could be said for Christian Scientists, or Orthodox Jews.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  28. they don't cover Egypt. by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    they don't cover Egypt.

    1. Re:they don't cover Egypt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have it bass ackwards and the fact that they don't cover a particular country or region is Irrelevant, if everyone had them they would assume they worked and not do the stupid is a stupid does.
      Make a market of dishes point up and a satellite will come.

      Its marketing 101, nature a capitalists abhor a vacuum.

    2. Re:they don't cover Egypt. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I thought they covered Europe and that included North Africa. Perhaps they don't sell to Egypt for regulatory reasons, but I'd guess that if you bought it in, say, Greece and then picked it up there, it'd work in Egypt. I'd have to take a look at the satellite footprint they use. If they don't do it, I'm sure there are at least 100 companies that sell sell services on satellites that cover Egypt, even if the total number selling services in that country were zero.

  29. And then there's the Catch 22 by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There. Is no such thing as a progressive muslim state. They are all horrendous in one form or another. Human rights, crime, despotism, corruption, justice, the works.

    The reality of Egypt is that the choices are grim and grimmer; support Mubarek, and you support an oppressive regime. It may be an iron fist in a velvet glove, but the fist is still made of iron. However, if you support real democratic elections in Egypt, then you're almost certainly going to get an Iranian-style theocracy that'll never have real elections again. And that's the way the vast majority of Egyptians want it. Take away the secular despot, and you're almost guaranteed to get a country run by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Only because we propped up Mubarek for so long. Had we used this opportunity to build McDonalds and raise the standard of living of the locals this would not be happening.

      The Iranians will have real elections again, we just slowed down their progress.

    2. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Iranians will have real elections again, we just slowed down their progress.

      That is the point that is lost of our government. At some point, the US govt. (MY govt) needs to learn when to get the fuck out of the business of trying to run other countries, and let the citizens figure it out on their own. I may take a couple of lifetimes, but our history is flooded with us interfering with other countries, and it always backfiring.

      And no, I'm not an idealistic kid. I'm in my 40s, ex military, and the son of retired military. It would also be nice if our military was used for defense, instead of nation building after we destroy the country to begin with.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not true. I am a supporter of the muslim brotherhood so I would've loved for what you're saying to be true. The reality is that most egyptians are liberal. The Muslim brotherhood predates the current regime. Before 1952, when this regime took over, there was a king and a freely elected government. Despite the presence of the muslim brotherhood at that time they never got a majority vote. It was always al wafd party that won the elections which is a liberal party.

      The egyptian government tries to play the muslim brotherhood card to scare the liberals in egypt from having an uprising like the one they are having now. The egyptian system in a democracy would be similar to the one in Canada with a majority liberal (most of the time) and sometimes conservative (muslim brotherhood) and the socialist parties would probably never get enough support to even have a minority government.

    4. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by crono_deus · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I'm an Egyptian who had the great luck of being born and raised in the States and many, many opportunities to go back home and visit.

      From what I've gathered, the Muslim Brotherhood is a shadow of their former selves; they were really big in the 80s and 90s, but they've lost direction and momentum. I think that they're currently just a specter straw-man that Mubarak and the Egyptian government likes to throw up to help keep the opposition in check.

      In other words, they're Egypt's Al-Qaeda, a great excuse for a dictator to keep clenching his iron fist.

      I went back there last December to see my cousin get married. Most Egyptians I spoke about politics -- there are elections coming up soon and it's a topic everyone wants to talk about -- seem to want very little to do with the Brotherhood; they blame them for a good number of terrorist and don't want them anywhere near positions of power.

      I don't deny that there's a risk in open elections -- certainly, you run the risk of electing kooks and crazies in every election. I just don't think the Brotherhood is as terrifying a specter as we think they are. At least, not any more. Have a little faith in the Egyptian people.

      --
      Ne Cede Malis.
    5. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      However, if you support real democratic elections in Egypt, then you're almost certainly going to get an Iranian-style theocracy that'll never have real elections again.

      Hate to say it, but that's what democracies mean. When the majority of people want something and vote it in, they should get it. Even if you (and I) don't think they really mean it, or will like what they get. Treat them like adults.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    6. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by graymocker · · Score: 2

      Someone's either bought into the Mubarak propaganda, or is just trafficking in easy, poorly informed cynicism. The despots have been using the fundamentalists as bogeymen forever. It's actually one of the reasons Egypt hasn't exploded before now: most of the population does NOT want to see Islamists in power, so the whole "It's either me or the Muslim Brotherhood!" talking point was very effective at keeping Egyptians in line. The recent events have exposed the utter falsehood of this argument though. These are the facts on the ground:

      (1) The MB issues an official statement a week ago instructing their members not to participate in any protests. They are happening anyway. This is a pretty clear indication that MB is not leading or even a part of the current movement.
      (2) Current "leaders" of the protest movement - to the extent that the very inchoate protests have leaders, they are probably more like inspirational figureheads - are dissidents like Ayman Nour.
      (3) The Egyption MB is more like the Turkish MB than the Taliban. Which is to say on the Islamist spectrum they are "moderate", and they don't question the fundamental legitimacy of the electoral process. "Sharia through the ballot box" would be their strategy. Which is still pretty awful to be sure, but it's important to be clear about what we are dealing with here. And even in it's "moderate" state, MB can only count on about 20% of the population. All of which suggests that, were Mubarak to be overthrown, the subsequent state would probably look more like Turkey than like Iran. The Islamists would be a formidable political force, and would even win elections from time to time, but they would not be in absolute control.

      Would a popularly governed Egypt look exactly like we Americans want? Of course not. But I think we can all agree that Turkey, for all of its faults, is a far better model for the Muslim world than Egypt or Iran. A democratic post-Mubarak Egypt would look more like Turkey than like Iran.

    7. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have my doubts. A) Egypt has enough diversity in it that I don't think the people would willingly go along with an absolute theocracy; B) demographics are an obstacle: the conservative mullahs aren't exactly popular among the majority of the ever-growing youth in any of these countries; C) even in the "classic" example of a radical theocracy brought via revolution (Iran) the people aren't exactly content with the status quo anymore.

      There's no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood would have a lot of influence in Egypt in a democracy -- as they should if people actually did support them democratically -- but take over the country and turn it into a theocracy? They might *want* to, but it would be difficult to achieve. It would be a tumultuous transition to dump Mubarak, but it might work out better. I can certainly see where rolling the dice to get something better than that horrible, oppressive regime would be a tempting option to people, especially if the regime starts clamping down even harder.

      It's up to the Egyptians, but in my opinion if they dump Mubarak: good for them! And then be vigilant against people trying to grab power for themselves rather than keeping it with the people.

    8. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny."
          -- Lloyd Biggle Jr.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    9. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      The reality of Egypt is that the choices are grim and grimmer

      But that's a choice for the Egyptian people to make, not for us. Except that the US government have chosen by financing a brutal and oppressive regime to the tune of billions of dollars. We're not just talking about about jets and missile systems, but also the small arms and riot equipment being used on the population right now.

      However, if you support real democratic elections in Egypt, then you're almost certainly going to get an Iranian-style theocracy that'll never have real elections again.

      If recent events have shown anything, it's that nothing is certain. The former IAEA chief Mohammed el Baradei could end up becoming president for example. Also remember that Iran had a democracy before a US/UK orchestrated coup destroyed it and replaced it with a brutal dictatorship in 1953.

    10. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If we responded to national protests in dictatorships by saying "go Democracy!" and picked sides based on their support for liberty and civil rights rather than their susceptibility to bribery, we could suck a lot of the oxygen out of muslim extremism.

      Would it really be so bad if the US and the Muslim extremists were on the same side of the barricades?

      There's a lot of people in this discussion claiming that the US is *always* backing dictators with whom we have existing relationships. I want to give two recent counterexamples:
        Tunisia: President Obama hailed the “courage and dignity of the Tunisian people,” and said the United States joined the rest of the world in “bearing witness to this brave and determined struggle." The US has had friendly relations with Tunisia for decades.

      Ivory Coast: President Obama "sent a letter to President Gbagbo, urging him to step aside and warning him of consequences if he does not." While the US has never supported Gbagbo after his coup, US companies (especially chocolate companies) have a big interest in the country's stability.

    11. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      One of the arguments I've seen is that Mubarak deliberately keeps the Muslim Brotherhood around as a toothless boogeyman, justifying his abuse of power and guaranteeing a steady supply of US foreign aid. The current protests were *not* started by the M.B., but they've been quick to jump on board.

    12. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we always praise the courageous people who rise up against the dictators we installed.

      I think we wanted Gbagbo out because no one could pronounce his name.

    13. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democracy is evil. It is the greatest enemy of freedom ever cooked up by man.

      People do not have the right to vote their rights away.

    14. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by kbahey · · Score: 2

      That is the what Mubarak (Egypt), Ben Ali (Tunisia), and other despots have been feeding the west for decades. "Hey! You want me to go! Are you ready to deal with wide-eyed fanatic Islamists taking over? I am better for you, so shut up on this reform stuff."

      Hogwash!

      Look at Turkey. The same drivel was spouted for years, and the army toppled Islamic leaning legitimate governments, such as the Erbakan government in the 1990s. The successor government, Erdogan's, has been in power since 2002 or so, and has been very moderate, well respected and focus on what is important. They did not put forward religious laws, they did not make Turkey a religious state. They did not force women to cover their head, nor did they do anything else that the fear mongers said.

      Now, look at what is happened in Tunisia. It was a real grassroots uprising against a dictator, his system, corruption, ...etc. The people on the street were from every affiliation. No single party or group is taking the lead or can claim this victory is their alone.

      The situation in Egypt is the same. People from every walk of life are out on the street. Go and look how they are dressed. Some wear designer clothings, have iPhones and Blackberries. Some wear traditional garb (flowing robes). A few have beards, most do not. This again is a no-affiliation grassroots movement. The government is again trying to accuse the Muslim Brotherhood of being behind it, despite the MB announcing that they will not participate ahead of January 25! Now they are rounding the MB leadership off and putting them in prison before the "Friday of Anger" tomorrow. I say: good riddance, because if the revolt succeeds without them, a) they can't take credit, and b) the West and other fear mongers cannot make it like it is a Muslim Brotherhood only victory!

      I like this uprising since it has a chance of success, and the people on the street are not carrying or chanting things for this party, or against that group. They are all focused on ousting the regime. They are protesting against rising prices, police brutality, monopoly on power.

      It worked in Tunisia, and should work in Egypt.

      The USA, and others have to take the side of the people, for once. Joe Biden was on TV and said that Mubarak should not be referred to as a dictator! This will hurt US interests in the long run. Obama supported the people of Tunisia in one of his speeches, and should do the same for Egypt. Or at least ask Biden to shut his hole for some time.

      For the USA or the West it is a shame to support someone in power for 29 years, when it is called a republic and he is called a president, all the time when lecturing on "freedom" and "democracy".

      Read this View from an Egyptian for more informaiton. I wrote it earlier today.

    15. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Have they? I was under the impression that thus far the M.B. has remained noncommittal.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      To some extent I can understand the position of the US, just as I could understand France's position on the Tunisian uprising. Better the devil you know is very much an axiom of realpolitik. I don't support the view of French and American leadership, because these nations have a fundamental right to choose their own path. If that path ultimately leads to an Iran-style theocracy, then I'm all for containment, and if need be, bombing them into the stone age, and hopefully the people of those nations understand that there are consequences if they elect a pack of religious fanatics bent on destruction of the West. But I do understand it. Mubarak and Ben Ali were staunch Western allies in a region that has its fair share of anti-Western governments. Losing them to the vagueries of elections is obviously pretty goddamned scary.

      I'm somewhat more hopeful in the case of Tunisia and Egypt, where the uprisings aren't fixated on any specific group or individual, unlike the Iranian Revolution. They are more general. The risk is that without unifying figures like the Ayatollah Khomeini was in Iran that existing or new despots will be able to seize the day, but the advantage is that if it succeeds you are going to see coalitions of reformers; yes, some that are from the Islamist end of the spectrum, but hopefully outmatched by moderates.

      One thing is for sure, it's damned interesting times. If these uprisings lead to a flowering of democracy in the Middle East, I'd say you couldn't ask for any better.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Would it really be so bad if the US and the Muslim extremists were on the same side of the barricades?

      Yes, in the sense that the US has no business being on either side of the barricades (except perhaps in the context of supporting the UN, as in your Ivory Coast example).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    18. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      False dichotomy. If you support real democratic elections in Egypt, you may get short-term anti-American groups winning, but that will likely change over time. The US is seen as supporting the existing dictators, which is why you're seeing anyone against Mubarak as also unhappy with the US. If the people of the Arab world feel that America is not behind them—or worse, is actively trying to hinder their democratization—it’s all too easy to imagine them falling for more radical narratives. A democratic government is likely to become much more like Iraq's or Turkey's, where they have a good working relationship with the US.

    19. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      "Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny."

          -- Lloyd Biggle Jr.

      Lloyd Biggle Jr. was dead wrong. That statement is astoundingly stupid if you think about it for even a moment.

      A immediate example of a form of tyranny more severe? Religious theocracy imposed from without, with executions for all who refuse to convert. Which has happened many times.

    20. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will remember that the next time a Klan meeting votes to lynch some innocent black man.

    21. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Tunisia doesn't count. Ben Ali, the dictator who was recently forced out due to massive protests and rioting, was considered to be a "loyal Bushie" who enthusiastically endorsed Bush's War on Terror. In exchange for his support, Bush always excluded him from his calls for Democratization in the Arab world. If these protestors had tried this stunt under Bush, Bush probably would have supported Ben Ali against them.

    22. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      Clarification: the US government isn't in the business of trying to run other countries. They are trying to maintain a safe environment for the business dealings of corporations and entities in other countries.

    23. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      However, if you support real democratic elections in Egypt, then you're almost certainly going to get an Iranian-style theocracy that'll never have real elections again.

      Hate to say it, but that's what democracies mean. When the majority of people want something and vote it in, they should get it. Even if you (and I) don't think they really mean it, or will like what they get. Treat them like adults.

      One man, one vote, one time.

    24. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      There's no question Bush had an impact on how the U.S. is perceived by the world. But if you're going to judge the U.S. entirely by his administration's actions, and say that anything we've done before or after "doesn't count", we may as well go on acting like thugs.

      A lot of people voted for Barack Obama for a lot of reasons. One reason *I* voted for him was because I hoped to show the world that the U.S. is not just 300 million George Bushes. And his foreign policy actions have borne that out, in small ways, if anyone were listening.

    25. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I think Winston Churchlll has something to say about that. Democracy allows people to vote their rights away, but makes it difficult for them to be taken by force. I think that's a fair trade.

    26. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Funny you mention Iran... it too had a fundamentalist minority and an educated secular majority: the fundamentalists were able to capitalize on the general hatred of the Shah and ended up riding the tiger to total control of the government. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

      I agree that an Egyptian populist revolution could lead to a new Turkey, but it could also lead to a new Iran. And the thing we in the U.S. have to realize is, the more we try to keep it as it is now, looking like the Shah's Iran, the more likely it is to follow Iran's path.

    27. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Eivind · · Score: 1

      It's a dilemma actually. What to do about a political party in a democracy who says they want to dismantle democracy.

      "Elect us ! We'll enact sharia, and never hold an election again !"

      Even if the people do, I would argue that their claim to power expires, there's a reason elections are held regularily - even if the people support a certain policy now, it doesn't mean that they will indefinitely. Furthermore if a dictatorship rules for a couple of decades, a significant fraction of the population will *never* have been asked because at the time of last election, they where too young to vote, or wheren't even born.

    28. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      The USA, and others have to take the side of the people, for once. Joe Biden was on TV and said that Mubarak should not be referred to as a dictator! This will hurt US interests in the long run. Obama supported the people of Tunisia in one of his speeches, and should do the same for Egypt. Or at least ask Biden to shut his hole for some time.

      Count me in as an American who agrees with this 100%. The more we try to support Mubarak, the more likely Egypt is to follow Iran rather than Turkey. But getting Biden to shut his hole is easier said than done.

    29. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      If these uprisings lead to a flowering of democracy in the Middle East, I'd say you couldn't ask for any better.

      Right now, on a ranch in Texas, a former president is saying, "See! It worked!"

      I am absolutely confident that we made the right decision. And not only that, I'm absolutely confident that the actions we took in Iraq are influencing reformers and freedom lovers in the greater Middle East. And I believe that you're going to see the rise of democracy in many countries in the broader Middle East, which will lay the foundation for peace.

    30. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So what do you do when one side is a secular dictator, and the other are fundie Islamists who want democracy (because they know they're backed by the majority of the population, and Shari'a will be voted in as state constitution anyway)?

    31. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      People do not have the right to vote their rights away.

      So what are you going to do if they do that? Off with their heads?

    32. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Builder · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been to Egypt ? McDonalds is everywhere in the populated areas there!

    33. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by mr100percent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're missing my point. Bush was pretty exceptional in that he called for democratization and then gave even more support to the despots than usual. Bush announced his change in foreign policy to work for more Arab democratization, and then when Egypt arrested all the people who dared run on the ballot against Mubarak, Condileeza Rice pretty much did nothing. Uzbekistan had a large human rights scandal where the police boiled a man to death and the government opened fire on protestors. However, Uzbekistan was a necessary partner for its airbase that could supply Afghanistan, so the US pretended it didn't happen.

      You're listing Tunisia as a counterexample, when I don't think it belongs there. Had these protests happened under Bush, he would probably have backed Ben Ali, "our vital partner in the war on terror." Want proof? Bush supported Musharraf to the hilt until the very end, which seriously damaged the US image in the country. (Pakistanis loved the US before Bush, as opinion polls show) When the pro-democracy forces took over again, they were angry that the US had been blatantly blocking democracy and rule of law in their country.

      Obama did a lot of good, including in recent coup places like Honduras. Here's hoping he can undo the rest of the damage.

    34. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Lloyd Biggle Jr. was dead wrong. That statement is astoundingly stupid if you think about it for even a moment.

      A immediate example of a form of tyranny more severe? Religious theocracy imposed from without, with executions for all who refuse to convert. Which has happened many times.

      So many times, in fact, that much of the Arab world has such a high percentage of Muslims that there's a good chance a reasonably theocratic government would get elected anyhow. The only thing that's open to debate is would it be a theocratic dictatorship hell-bent on keeping its people living in poverty and hunger or would it be reasonably progressive as they go?

      I rather suspect that unless there are some real changes in the Middle East, much of the Arab world will actually become significantly worse. Tunisia has been relatively progressive - sure, it's a Muslim country, but local women wore fairly Western-style clothes and education levels were actually pretty good. I do not think these facts, combined with the fact that all this started in Tunisia, will have escaped the local rulers.

    35. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I don't deny that there's a risk in open elections -- certainly, you run the risk of electing kooks and crazies in every election

      See: Hezbollah.

    36. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      No offense, but I don't even have faith in a supposedly-well-educated American populace to elect decent leaders. Too many people are just too dumb.

      What you see when you go back to Egypt are likely the relatively well-educated, liberal family members of a guy whose immediate family was smart enough to get to a Western nation to raise their kids. There is some inherent selection bias to that. So I fully believe that your family members and their friends are bright enough to elect good leaders for Egypt.

      The problem is that massive numbers of dumb, poor, poorly educated people in the rest of the country. This isn't really a knock against Egypt, these people exist in every country, you just don't necessarily see them when you visit a country and stay in a major urban center and spend time with the bright, well-educated secular populace there. And in majority-Muslim nations like Turkey and Egypt, they get used by the religious parties to win elections.

      Turkey has a good system in place to keep this in check - a military constitutionally empowered to defend secularism even if it means throwing out an elected government. I think Egypt would benefit from a similar arrangement - democracy at gunpoint, because sometimes only force can prevent the crazy kooks from trying to create an Iranian-style theocracy.

    37. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      And of course, in the short-term, you may get anti-democratic Muslim extremists winning who rapidly set up Iran-style theocracies and suspend all but puppet elections. In other words, just as much of an iron fist as Mubarak, but without the secularism or more socially progressive aspects.

      Turkey is a good example, but they have a constitutionally empowered military to protect against exactly this happening because they don't trust the masses in their own country to elect people who will support the basic institutions of democracy.

    38. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Heightening the tension, the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest organized opposition group in the country, announced Thursday that it would take part in the protest. ... “Tomorrow is going to be the day of the intifada,” said a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood ...

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/world/middleeast/28alexandria.html?hp

    39. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by boxwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?

      Democracy just isn't just about voting its about human rights too. Otherwise you can simply intimidate a large percentage of the population, kill all members of opposition parties and get elected. Is that still democracy? Well technically, a party that uses these tactics got the most votes, so I guess anything they want to do is all good. Right?

      What if the entire media is controlled by allies of the government in power. The news says only bad things about the opposition and only good things about the government. They don't report that the government shut down all media that criticised them.

      Too many people have lived all their lives in the developed world and have never seen how democracy works (or doesn't work) in the developing world. You can have all the elections you want but that doesn't mean that people will get the government they want.

    40. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      It worked so well with Germany and Japan that the US government thought it could just keep repeating the success. The problem is that the US (we) have enough problems of our own to sort out before we start jumping in other people's problems. Like you said, let the US support democratization by the people, then get out of the way and let those people figure it out on their own.

    41. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I think the reason it worked in Germany and Japan is that the citizens of those countries were (for the most part) completely behind their governments, so when their governments were removed, they had to have something put in its place. The mistake we made in Iraq (among many) is removing most of the people in government: military, police, bureaucracy, etc . We didn't do this in Japan and Germany to this degree. It means everyone that is inserted into any position is starting from zero, which is tough to do with that many positions.

      In the middle east, the citizens are NOT behind the governments as much as people think. They have simply tolerated them, until now. Our government keeps pushing for stability, but in doing so, they are supporting the very oppression that is leading to the riots. This is why the powers that will take control will end up being anti-US, just like it happened in Iran during the 70s revolution. That is what is so frustrating: We KNOW this will happen, but our policies continue to be short sighted, after all these many decades.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    42. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That's because he's a fucking moron. I see little or no linkage between Iraq and Tunisia and Egypt. I cannot imagine many Egyptians or Tunisians actually wanting to have to live through what the Iraqis have lived through for eight years.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    43. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      No, I absolutely agree that Bush would have backed Ben Ali, and I think his support of Musharraf borders on criminal. But you're saying Tunisia doesn't count because of what Bush would have done: I'm saying that since the 2008 election, it's *Bush* that doesn't count anymore.

      Maybe, in about 50 years or so, the rest of the world will agree.

    44. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      That's because he's a fucking moron

      My point exactly.

    45. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      All right, I get your point on Tunisia, but Obama and Clinton are really dropping the ball on Egypt, they are taking Mubarak's side over the public:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/28/obama-clinton-wobble-egypt-mubarak

    46. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      You're a day behind the news. That Clinton statement was from yesterday, and I interpret it as stalling for time. Today was a lot less ambivalent:

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=133242817
      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=133212560

      They're not exactly kicking Mubarak to the curb, but they're brandishing the foreign aid stick, demanding democratic reform, and stressing that the US's loyalties lie with Egypt, not Mubarak.

    47. Re:And then there's the Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't deny that there's a risk in open elections -- certainly, you run the risk of electing kooks and crazies in every election

      See: Hezbollah.

      Also see: The US administration (any party.)

  30. Yeah- It's Off All Right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like EVERYTHING is out. If you try to look at sites in Egypt, you get nothing. They don't even ping. I have to admit I enjoyed the irony of being cut off from Orascom's site, since they have built systems around the world for authoritatrian states, including North Korea.

    1. Re:Yeah- It's Off All Right! by v1 · · Score: 1

      Looks like EVERYTHING is out. If you try to look at sites in Egypt, you get nothing. They don't even ping. I have to admit I enjoyed the irony of being cut off from Orascom's site, since they have built systems around the world for authoritatria

      Post after post talking about sites. They took out the backbone routers. Of course all the SITES are down.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  31. How to help? by gQuigs · · Score: 1

    How can we help the people of Egypt? What can we do to help them overthrow this tyranny? I usually post about what I'm doing to try help, but am coming up blank here.

    1. Re:How to help? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Go over there and demonstrate with them?

    2. Re:How to help? by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      You can't take direct action, but you can affect the way your country responds to events. Tell your leaders not to stand behind Mubarak, and to say they welcome peaceful demonstration and elections. Egypt's current regime may be geopolitically useful, but any democratic nation that supports Mubarak is going to lose in the court of world opinion.

    3. Re:How to help? by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Smuggle FRS radios into the crowd. Not exactly cell, but good for crowd control by the good guys.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    4. Re:How to help? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Write a letter or E-mail to your congressman and Obama? Call the state department and leave a voicemail that you want the US to support democratization (202) 647-4000

    5. Re:How to help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sneak in old stencil machines, photocopiers, printers etc. to people you know and trust in universities' student centers? IIRC that's what happened in Romania when TSHTF in the eighties (Timisoara). Don't know if it helped any.. maybe someone from the Central European University can comment?

    6. Re:How to help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send them CDs and DVDs of porn!! ;)

  32. Anonymous Has Stepped In by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 5, Interesting
    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    1. Re:Anonymous Has Stepped In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are they going to do? ddns egypt's internet infrastructure?

    2. Re:Anonymous Has Stepped In by Baldrson · · Score: 1

      The so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is a vague laundry list of selectively enforced pubescent girl wishes.

      If you want truth and freedom then you must support secession as the primary human right so that disagreements over what constitutes "human rights" can be settled by mutually consenting occupation of territories.

    3. Re:Anonymous Has Stepped In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is a vague laundry list of selectively enforced pubescent girl wishes.

      Is that so, you say? Literature and history both disagree with you. I'll take them over your opinion.

      If you want truth and freedom then you must support secession as the primary human right so that disagreements over what constitutes "human rights" can be settled by mutually consenting occupation of territories.

      Why must one support that? And why do you write "human rights" instead of human rights?

      I find your defaitism to be rather blatant and I would very much not like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      If you have anything constructive to say in order to help people in distress then please do so, else would you please be so kind as to shut up and fuck off? Thank you.

  33. Assuming the Egyptian govt. cuts off people by baegucb · · Score: 1

    A better question would be, how can other countries be prevented from doing this? Let's assume the Egyptian government succeeds (my opinion atm). What could people in Yemen or Iran, for instance, do now to get around future blocks?

    1. Re:Assuming the Egyptian govt. cuts off people by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Diplomats, press, tourists, workers ect. A small 'photo' chip 1/2 empty with holiday pics and a space free for a deleted vid.
      The 1991 http://www.friendsoftimor.com/santa_cruz_massacre.php (~271 were killed, 382 wounded, and 250 disappeared) shows how film can be made public, even if strip searched on arrival back in 'free' counties.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Assuming the Egyptian govt. cuts off people by baegucb · · Score: 1

      And this helped how?

    3. Re:Assuming the Egyptian govt. cuts off people by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      The government won't succeed... without external support.

      Say, some big, rich country interested in maintaining status quo and furthering their influences, that is friendly to the current regime, begins sending "aid" to "peace the protesters".

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:Assuming the Egyptian govt. cuts off people by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Implement ad-rock wifi networks. Just like the OLPC does.

  34. Well now all the young urban people will p** off* by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

    The question will be; what is the ratio of:
    (people who didn't have/want access to the internet + people who had and probably still have priviledge access to internet (state/corp satelite, like you need in iran and saudi arabia to download some serious porn ...)) vs all the rest...

    If the children of the cops and miltary start to violently yell at their parents because they cannot keep contact with their crew, the government is in bad shape...

    It will be an interesting experiment, it shows the governement is deperate, in iran they just slow down the internet to make it boring when there are politicaly sensitive situation, but do not completely cut it...

    hopefully de pharaon will be expulsed..

    but do not hope too much between 85 and 97 % of the women in Egypt are still wictim of Female Genital Mutilation, it is illegal since 2007, but almost any egyptian woman who is older than 10..12 years and not member of a intelectual educated minority had probably been mutilated this way.

    and do not expect the internet to "treat censorship as an error and route around" this died with operator consolidation and commercialisation of the internet...

  35. International human rights violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope no one in currently in Egypt is from France or Finland, otherwise they are guilty of violating human rights: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525993,00.html , http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-15/tech/finland.internet.rights_1_internet-access-fast-internet-megabit?_s=PM:TECH

  36. Well... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Funny

    They could patch into a Gibson, use that uplink to tunnel into the global GPS satellite network and then beam the (enhanced) signal down into the internet and thus successfully hack the plant.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acid post. Why don't I have mod points to Burn today.

  37. United States likes dictators... by emm-tee · · Score: 2

    The United States likes dictators if they serve it's interests.

    1. Re:United States likes dictators... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      To be more precise: we don't *like* them, but we'll hold our noses and deal with them when they're useful. And that's only our government: most of our people don't like this one bit.

      Now's the time for Hilary Clinton to say, "Sorry Hosni, not our problem", and warn him not to go all Tienanmen Square, like she did with Tunisia.

    2. Re:United States likes dictators... by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      We do like some of them, such as the Shah of Iran, Augusto Pinochet, and Manuel Noriega. In fact, during the Cold War we liked those guys a lot more than democratically elected leaders who were showing liberal tendencies due to a perceived fear that they might support the Commies.

      And by "we" I mostly mean the CIA, who typically did this stuff without the knowledge of We The People.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:United States likes dictators... by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Oh, you don't like them? That is why you overthrown democratic governments all around the world and put those dictators on their place?

    4. Re:United States likes dictators... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      We like stability. We like bringing people into the free market slowly. We like slow change toward democracy over rapid chaos where even worse person can arise.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:United States likes dictators... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      We did a lot of that during the cold war, when we were foolish enough to believe that socialism was scarier than dictatorship. But even then, it was a "lesser of two evils" thing. But since the end of the cold war, we haven't overthrown a single democracy, though we've kept a few of our existing dictatorships propped up.

      Yes, I realize this is a bit like a drunkard bragging that he hasn't beaten his children in two whole days, but it's a start.

    6. Re:United States likes dictators... by AlejoHausner · · Score: 1

      This comes as a surprise only to Americans. The rest of the developing world knows that the U.S. likes dictators. Many latin American countries endured dictatorships that were endorsed or tolerated by the U.S. government, mostly because the dictators favoured the interests of American companies. It's nothing new. What's surprising is that Joe Biden would be candid enough to claim on national TV that Mubarak isn't a dictator.

    7. Re:United States likes dictators... by ElusiveJoe · · Score: 1

      Asked if he would characterize Mubarak as a dictator Biden responded: “Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel. I would not refer to him as a dictator.”

      Please, try to explain this. What he is saying is "He did everything what we told him to do, so he's not the bad guy, even if he fucked up his own people. He served our country's interests, and as to the interests of Egypt people - we could not care less. "

    8. Re:United States likes dictators... by _Bucktooth_ · · Score: 1

      Endorsed? How about actually training dictators in human rights violations? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation

  38. MUBARAK, LET MY PEOPLE GO !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that's the ticket !! We will roam the desert to find the promised land !! What ?? Jews already there ?? OK, do overs !!

  39. I have a question... by Qubit · · Score: 1

    Would the government be able to triangulate position of the send/receive devices?

    If not, or at least not easily, we could try to get some tech into the right hands over there...

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
    1. Re:I have a question... by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Would the government be able to triangulate position of the send/receive devices?

      If not, or at least not easily, we could try to get some tech into the right hands over there...

      Most likely, yes it's possible, but no they don't have time and people to do it right now.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    2. Re:I have a question... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      In a practical sense, they can't even do that in the US now. The dish is pointed at the sky. They'd have great trouble finding it from the ground. They likely don't have the setup to search from the air. And using the satellite operators to track them is a possibility, but isn't very accurate and I wouldn't imagine the operators would be excited about helping infringe on human rights.

      They'd do better driving around looking for dishes on roofs and shooting them down.

  40. Well, that explains a few things... by Pollux · · Score: 1

    I lived in Egypt for a year back in 2003. Used TEData as an ISP. Can't get to their webpage presently, and all DNS inquiries go unresolved.

    And I wondered why my email's been down. (I terminated my contract w/ TEData back in summer '04 before I left the country, and the admins have yet to delete my POP account. I haven't sent them a check in seven years, but Egyptians are not so well known for being on top of things.)

  41. Generational change in the Arab world by PerformanceDude · · Score: 1
    This move is showing the significant level of desperation within the Egyptian government. The desire to completely control information by only giving citizens TV, radio and "old" media is futile. Word travels fast in comunities that are under siege and all this will do is feed the rumour mills to a point where the slightest spark can create a wild-fire.

    There is clearly a generational shift happening in the Arab world. The "old style" corrupt dictators, supported in large by a religious elite that is composed predominantly of old power-hungry zealots are facing the new (formerly) silent majority of a youth that is increasingly well educated, informed of world events and sceptical of the relgious indoctrination they are being subjected to. It was only ever a matter of time before the new generations in Tunesia, Lebanon, Iran etc., reached the tipping point where comformism is turned to resistance. And since most soldiers and police in those countries also belong to the younger generation, they are likely to also join in rather than turn their weapons on their friends and family.

    As a side remark: If only this means that a change in Egypt's government also gets rid of that annoying Zahi Hawass who always want to get his face into every darn documentary on Egypt, then I'll think the uprising was a HUGE success.

    --
    Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
    1. Re:Generational change in the Arab world by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      You don't know how much of what you wrote is wrong. It was todays kids, parents generation that were well educated, informed, and non-radicalized. The kids(15-30) of this generation that are increasingly educated, but hyper-radicalized from 2 generations ago who are afraid of losing their power completely.

      Tunisia? Pft. It's already started the slide into a hyper-islamic state with the revolution. The black flag of conquest is already flying.

      I'm sure I'll be modded down, but just because people don't like the reality, doesn't make it not true.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Generational change in the Arab world by klingens · · Score: 1

      There is clearly a generational shift happening in the Arab world. The "old style" corrupt dictators, supported in large by a religious elite that is composed predominantly of old power-hungry zealots are facing the new (formerly) silent majority of a youth that is increasingly well educated, informed of world events and sceptical of the relgious indoctrination they are being subjected to.

      You know that the current egyptian regime under Mubarak is a secular one, and if today were actually free elections, the islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood would win a landslide victory?

    3. Re:Generational change in the Arab world by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Mostly because of what Mubarak has done. The USA and its tinpot dictactors keep doing this. When you screw up a nation this badly don't be surprised when folks you don't like can use it to rise to power.

    4. Re:Generational change in the Arab world by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Impressive disconnect to the world. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the imams chanting that the US is the all evil satan and unless they convert to an islamic country, the women will have more rights. Oh and we can't forget the persecution of any religion other than islam for the most parth in that either.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Generational change in the Arab world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Muslim brotherhood would win a victory because they're the only credible and large opposition. When you stifle all opposition, they all band together into one group. Look at Iran, the Shah oppressed everyone, so the Muslim theocrats, the Communists, the anarchists, and liberal democrats all banded together to oust him. They only separated into different parties once the Shah was gone. It's the same with Egypt.

    6. Re:Generational change in the Arab world by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      {citation needed}

    7. Re:Generational change in the Arab world by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      But that just begs the question, why are the imams chanting that the US is the evil satan? Sure, we invented the mini-skirt(*), which has gotta make them nervous, but they didn't really give a shit about us back in the 1940s, before we started propping up local dictators.

      (*) We didn't actually invent the mini-skirt, but you get the idea.

  42. CB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We got a great big convoy rockin' through the night

    Check out my great big chariot, ain't she a beautiful sight!!

    CONVOY!

    1. Re:CB! by Albert+Sandberg · · Score: 1

      That is a wonderful movie :D

  43. RFC1149 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I KNEW it would finally prove useful!

    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html

  44. This is fantastic news. by Darth_brooks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love hearing this. In fact, I hope more countries undergoing political unrest opt to shut off 'net access. Specifically I'm hoping for similar occurrences in places like Syria, Pakistan. Go ahead and try getting your internet kill switch bill passed then ya jackasses. Every political talking head will blaze up a nice firestorm while the chickenshits dive for cover.

    I just wish there was a way to help.

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:This is fantastic news. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If I dial 255.255.255.255, can I make all the phones in the world ring at once?

      Only if you dial 9 first for an outside line.

    2. Re:This is fantastic news. by Thing+1 · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. Obama will never get his kill switch, now.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    3. Re:This is fantastic news. by goodmanj · · Score: 2

      Can you find a quote in which Obama asked for one? His name appears in all the headlines, but I can't find a White House statement on the matter. As far as I can tell, this is security-crazed congressmen trying to give him something he didn't ask for.

    4. Re:This is fantastic news. by irockash · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard about Pakistan, Internet access isn't really at the top of the list...

    5. Re:This is fantastic news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this should be modded insightful; anyone with basic knowledge of America's current political scene knows this is 100% true. It's ironic that this is true, though, because essentially by allowing these countries to "take the hit" people of the US could potentially be more certain of their own protections.

    6. Re:This is fantastic news. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Just as with the Tucson shooting, this is a case where what you see depends on what you already believe. Just wait, tomorrow you'll hear, "If we *don't* have an Internet kill switch, we could have fundamentalist Muslim lunatics rioting on the Washington Mall and NO WAY TO STOP THEM!"

    7. Re:This is fantastic news. by Mysteray · · Score: 1

      That's because Obama claims he already has one in the form of some communications base-station takeover provision in a pre-WWII law.

    8. Re:This is fantastic news. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      You don't believe in links, do you? I tried to figure out what you were referring to, and came across this claim that the FCC is trying to regulate the Internet, specifically regarding Net Neutrality, using a 1930s rule. But right or wrong, authority to regulate is not the same as the power to disconnect. After all, the US government regulates the interstate highway system, but has no power to shut it down in peacetime.

    9. Re:This is fantastic news. by Mysteray · · Score: 1

      Sigh. I may not believe in links, but I guess you don't believe in search engines. But since you asked so nicely here's a quote from the second search hit:

      Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

      There are other references to this in the press, but as you said, I don't believe in links. Or maybe they aren't links I can believe in. Or maybe one of us just isn't believing hard enough.

    10. Re:This is fantastic news. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      That quote implicates Lieberman and the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Lieberman is the "security-crazed congressman" I referred to earlier. It says nothing about the *president's* involvement in this bill.

      I googled up a storm when you first posted this, and while there are plenty of articles on the "kill switch" that have Obama's name in the headline, I can't find one in which he has any comment on it.

    11. Re:This is fantastic news. by Mysteray · · Score: 1

      I remember seeing an article where an official in the executive branch was basically asserting the same thing.

  45. Time for mesh networks as the overnet by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it is time that everyone goes out and buys a device capable of mesh networking, and runs cable around their suburb (there is not much they can do when the pipe and cable goes under the fence).

    The world learnt a lesson from Germany: When a government goes off the rails and tries to dominate its citizens.. the next step is the domination of the world.

    Will a government really hunt down *everyone* with a *prescribed device* and shoot them? How many? A million? Two?

    What happens if on the 18th of March 2011 every girl in a muslim country walks around all day with no head scarf and in western clothes - jeans and a tshirt?
    Are they going to kill all of their young women? If so, where do they expect the next generation for their country to come from?
    Not so long ago, women burned their bras in protest. How long until this happens in the rest of the world?

    The question is: Is this the start of the next Nazi Regime?

    --
    You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
    1. Re:Time for mesh networks as the overnet by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      The world learnt a lesson from Germany: When a government goes off the rails and tries to dominate its citizens.. the next step is the domination of the world.

      You're ignoring all of the other authoritarian governments that haven't tried to dominate the world.

      Germany was an exception, not the rule.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Time for mesh networks as the overnet by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 1

      Interesting list. Is the difference 'Money' or 'Position'?

      Germany, for example, found itself in a position with the cash flow and work force which is required to wage a war on the scale required for world domination.

      Looking through that list - is there any country there for which could be related to Germany?

      Looks like Iran or Pakistan could go the same way.. except that they are being held in check.

      Do you think Iran or Pakistan wouldn't go for conquest if there were not so busy dealing with the US and each other?

      And if so, would their first move be to totally restrict internet access (ala Egypt)

      --
      You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
  46. A lot of egyptian sites down too by jordan314 · · Score: 1

    Just verifying that the reverse is true too. From some simple googling, a lot of egyptian sites are indeed down.
    http://www.cairo.gov.eg/
    http://www.egregistry.eg/
    http://www.internetegypt.com/
    http://www.cu.edu.eg/

    1. Re:A lot of egyptian sites down too by goodmanj · · Score: 0

      Did you know that the Internet can send data in both directions? Wow! You'd be excused for being confused about this, of course, since the world's media companies are doing their best to make sure it only goes one way, like broadcast TV.

    2. Re:A lot of egyptian sites down too by jordan314 · · Score: 2

      Did you know that there's a difference between turning off internet access for just consumers and turning off access to all servers including official government and university sites like those that I linked to?

    3. Re:A lot of egyptian sites down too by Reziac · · Score: 1

      This may be a dumb question, but how do we know some other hostile party didn't cut some critical cables?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:A lot of egyptian sites down too by mad+flyer · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is...
      while It's technically possible...

      But

      1 it's a remote possibility
      2 an official cause seems to have been aknowledged
      3 there is no known "hostile party" with such interest.

      So it's not a case of smart "what if ?" where a theory with backing is proposed against the official explanation.

      It's statistical dumpster diving...

  47. If Egypt falls by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    What happens to all those arms deals? This could send our economy into a tailspin.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:If Egypt falls by gtall · · Score: 1

      You mean the 2 to 5 billion the U.S. gives Egypt which probably goes to spending on arms. And that money is going to shake a $14 trillion U.S. economy. Do get a sense of proportion.

  48. Re:Who is responsible? by v1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We should find out which companies bowed before the dictators. Looks like Vodaphoe is one of them.

    When a truckload of soldiers show up at your NOC with automatic weapons and politely ask you to pull the plug, you do

    You can't blame the ISPs for this. In cases like this the soldiers usually have orders to turn their weapons on the racks if the ISP refuses to cooperate. One way or another, you will cooperate.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  49. They're using ad hoc networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to a commentator on the CBC radio, the Egyptians are using wifi to create ad hoc networks. They can use these with their smart phones.

    Maybe this is what they're talking about: http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wireless/ht/setupadhocwifi.htm

    1. Re:They're using ad hoc networks by lytles · · Score: 1

      this is a step in the right direction, but on top of that you need to layer something that allows persistence to messages, since the ad hoc networks aren't going to be able to route most of the messages that you want to send. maybe bittorrent or even smtp

      A and B are in separate nets. A sends a message to B. everyone in A's net saves the message and when they connect to a new net they pass it on (to everyone in the new net). eventually someone finds B and delivers the message. as formulated highly inefficient, but should be tweakable to allow for short messages

    2. Re:They're using ad hoc networks by baalin · · Score: 1

      This could actually be really effective, put your message in ssids on centraly located wifi's and your message will be braodcasted the protestors in the vicinity.

  50. Re:"Egypt Shuts Off All land-based Internet Access by v1 · · Score: 1

    Do any of the satellite providers cover Egypt?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  51. Elections with poor choices and dumb voters by h00manist · · Score: 1

    The most common elections often have poor choices and people who aren't educated or organized voting. It would be a rather common election. Still, it's an election.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  52. Sorry... I forgot Americans! by denzacar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All Americans are fat and stupid. There. Can I please have my post modded up again now?
    Or do I have to make a stupid generalization about someone else? Like Chinese? Brits? Zie Germans?

    COME ON!
    I too want to be modded +5 Insightful for being a generalizing asshole who pigeonholes millions of people and their cultures into degrading *caricatures of themselves.

     
     
     
    *caricatures are like an exaggerated cartoon of someone, where he looks funny... and then we laugh at him cause he is funny looking.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Sorry... I forgot Americans! by nanospook · · Score: 1

      We are not so stupid!!! Take it back or I'll throw this milkshake at you! *SHAKING CHUBBY FIST*

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    2. Re:Sorry... I forgot Americans! by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      I too want to be modded +5 Insightful for being a generalizing asshole who pigeonholes millions of people and their cultures into degrading *caricatures of themselves.

       
      I think you better stick to being an asshole who doesn't read posts before posting angry replies to them. He was talking about states: http://hsudarren.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/map-of-freedom.gif (for those who studied geography in American school system, the purple - i.e. least free, countries are mostly Islamic except for China and couple of others)

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    3. Re:Sorry... I forgot Americans! by grcumb · · Score: 1

      All Americans are fat and stupid. There. Can I please have my post modded up again now?

      Perfect example of Slashdot groupthink: You just jump on that meme and ride it like a two dollar whore. Sheesh, geeks are so predictable!

      Now mod me up, motherfuckers! This post is all meta and ironic and shit!

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    4. Re:Sorry... I forgot Americans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it get the sand out of your vagina to say "There is no such thing as a progressive theocratic state."?

    5. Re:Sorry... I forgot Americans! by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      I too want to be modded +5 Insightful for being a generalizing asshole who pigeonholes millions of people and their cultures into degrading *caricatures of themselves.

      You must've been modded down by a muslim. They don't much like caricatures.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  53. Egpyt is not entirely off line by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are major outages, but the entire country of Egypt is not off line. Cairo is hard to reach, but Alexandria seems to be up via some routes. Delay on the last link to the Alexandria gateway is about 70ms.

    1. Re:Egpyt is not entirely off line by spasm · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to renesys, all but one of the ISPs are offline - the one which carries the country's stock exchange: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt-leaves-the-internet.shtml

    2. Re:Egpyt is not entirely off line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Egyptian stock exchange still online.. http://www.egyptse.com/English/homepage.aspx

    3. Re:Egpyt is not entirely off line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe their net just got slashdotted.

  54. Well, now we know how to radicalize nerds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always thought the solution to world peace would be to air drop generators, flat screens and xboxes so that bored would be terrorists had something to do for fun. I think pulling the plug is not going to help at all, unless you are a corrupt politician.

  55. Malaysia? by lullabud · · Score: 1

    I'm not well versed in Malaysian law, but I found Malaysia to be pretty forgiving to non-Malaysians in regards to Sharia law. IIRC they judge their muslim citizens by Sharia law, but expats are allowed more freedoms. I personally loved Malaysia and felt no oppression when I was there, and was amazed to find that it was so Islamic when my plane landed.

    Malaysia is over 60% muslim, which is coincidental because 60% of the world's muslim population lives in Asia, whereas only 20% is in the middle east. http://pewforum.org/Muslim/Mapping-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx

    1. Re:Malaysia? by grimdawg · · Score: 1

      Malaysia is over 60% muslim, which is coincidental because 60% of the world's muslim population lives in Asia, whereas only 20% is in the middle east.

      How ironic.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary, and nine other kinds of people.
    2. Re:Malaysia? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      IIRC they judge their muslim citizens by Sharia law, but expats are allowed more freedoms

      The trick is that children of a Muslim father are automatically counted as Muslims, with all that entails. You want to opt out? That's apostasy, mate.

    3. Re:Malaysia? by gtall · · Score: 1

      I respectable religion does not threaten people wishing to leave it with death. That isn't a religion, it is a cult with all the control that goes with it.

  56. Hack the PLANET... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry... an 'e' got away from me.

    You don't need all that to hack a plant. You can hack a plant simply by hitting it repeatedly with an axe.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Hack the PLANET... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon mods!! Give him the double +5 funny!!

  57. turkey isnt muslim by unity100 · · Score: 2

    its just that anyone who was born from a muslim parent (either) was registered as muslim, regardless of what their parents had said. hence, 99% of the population ended up as muslim even if they were atheists or didnt care for anything. 20% of population goes from there. a majority of population doesnt care for religion much, it is only remembered when someone dies or born, and there goes another 30%. a 30-40% of the population follow islam, but not as radical as arabs. rest 10-20% are probably worse than arabs radicalism.

    had islam been as strong here as arab countries, there would be no difference. even in this case there are a lot of backward practices. and attempts to islamicize the country.

  58. Death throes by amightywind · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that'll help.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  59. Explain China by Troll-Under-D'Bridge · · Score: 1

    The People's Republic of China has lots of blogs, cell phones, and bogus brand blue jeans (I don't know about the Bruce Springsteen part). Does the PROC symbolize a win for American ideals?

    Maybe you should qualify your enthusiasm for consumerist democracy. Here's a little thought experiment. Imagine a state where all your creature comforts are taken care of: from food to housing to health care to porn. Would you bother protesting you don't have the right to select the Great Leader?

    1. Re:Explain China by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      I can imagine such a state, what I'm having trouble imagining is an economic arrangement capable of creating this kind of wealth that isn't based at least in (large) part on free market principles.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    2. Re:Explain China by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      The People's Republic of China has lots of blogs, cell phones, and bogus brand blue jeans (I don't know about the Bruce Springsteen part). Does the PROC symbolize a win for American ideals?

      Not yet. Give it a few years.

    3. Re:Explain China by Weezul · · Score: 1

      There is considerable low level unrest caused by corruption and inequality in China, far more so than in the middle east. Yet, the Chinese people know from their parents and grand parents just how bad life was only a few generations ago. It's amazing how much exploitation and corruption people will tolerate if the leadership is seen as actually achieving anything.

      In time, the U.S. and E.U. will need to enforce trade balance with China, which is the last legal recourse under the WTO treaties. After this, China's economic expansion will slow and inequality and corruption will become more important to the Chinese. I'd imagine whether the Chinese eventually revolt depends mostly upon how much their economy grows between now & then. And clever leaders could placate the people for decades through gradual reforms.

      Imho, the biggest problem for China isn't how unrest will grow as their economy slows, but instead their future leadership : All the current Chinese leaders were trained under a communist system, which while steeped in eastern style familial favoritism & corruption, also rewarded achievement. Among this wealthy class, the children are a stinking load of spoiled brats who're still steeped in familial favoritism & corruption. There are obviously many successful countries whose upper class fits the same description, but it makes choosing the leaders important, think Bush v2.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    4. Re:Explain China by Troll-Under-D'Bridge · · Score: 1

      Star Trek?

  60. Hmmmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There may be exceptions to rules, but they are rules, generalizations and cliche for a reason. Observational evidence is the best we can go by, and evidence says...

  61. Bad move, Egypt! by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    Before, you would have had SOME young Egyptians quietly staying at home and wanking off... now you're going to have ALL of them out in the streets!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  62. Kill Switch by Seumas · · Score: 1

    Wait a second. So, you're telling me that when your government keeps pushing for some sort of kill switch on the entire internet, they might activate it to prevent people from dissenting? Who ever would have thought?! Boy, I'm glad we're getting one here, too! I'm sure it'll never be misused!

    1. Re:Kill Switch by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      I'm okay with an Internet kill switch (more or less). If it ever gets misused, we have the Second Amendment to fall back on.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Kill Switch by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Quick, someone write an RFC for "IP over 9mm".

  63. BGPMon Analysis by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a quick look BGP level analysis available from BGPMon. Except for Noor Data Networks, the number of announced address blocks is way down. This means that most Egyptian IP addresses are now not reachable from the rest of the world.

    Here is BGPMon on the dating of the outage :

    At this point egypt.gov.eg is offline. This network, 81.21.104.0/24 was withdrawn at January 27th at 22:28 UTC . Another example is www.ahram.org.eg an Egyptian news paper. This network 196.219.246.0/24, became unreachable at the exact same time, January 27th at 22:28 UTC.

    I think that it is safe to assume that this outage is related to the big protests planned for tomorrow.

    1. Re:BGPMon Analysis by profaneone · · Score: 1

      So are the peers physically down, or just not announcing any prefixes? If it is a matter of (un)announced prefixes, then couldn't the points to which the peering points connect (or major points on the net) just statically route the blocks that were available last week as seen in BGPlay? Just wondering :\

    2. Re:BGPMon Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naah, that's not what happened. The country just ran out of IPv4 space and promptly crashed!

    3. Re:BGPMon Analysis by acooks · · Score: 1

      How hard would it be to grab these IP blocks that have gone dark? (Ignoring IANA and such)

      Seeing as IPv4 blocks are becoming more valuable and assuming that Egypt may not want to cut themselves off forever, could it be used as tool for applying pressure on the Egyptian government?

    4. Re:BGPMon Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That link is a nice tool for Egyptian authority to use to go find offending ISPs...

    5. Re:BGPMon Analysis by mbone · · Score: 1

      The Rensys blog has a similar, but more detailed, analysis of the withdrawal of Egyptian BGP announcements.

      Like BGPMon, they note that the Noor Data group has not been shut off, and note that the "the Egyptian Stock Exchange (www.egyptse.com) is still alive at a Noor address." I have to suspect that this is not a coincidence.

      One has to wonder what economic damage will be done by disconnecting a whole country from the Internet. Keeping the stock exchange on-line may not be enough.

    6. Re:BGPMon Analysis by mbone · · Score: 1

      If I had to guess, I would suspect that either there is a choke point or points (say, at the landing stations for the undersea cables coming into Egypt), or that the Egyptian government has a choke-hold on the 4 main ISPs there. Either way, the peers seem to be physically up, just not announcing many address blocks (or those announcements are blocked).

      As always, I wonder whose gear they are using to do this, and who might be advising them.

    7. Re:BGPMon Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noor DSL is the smallest DSL data provider in Egypt. They blocked all other providers after they transferred the banks and the stock market to that provider. They cannot take that out too unless they will stop the banks and stock market from operating.
      It is real media/info warfare.

    8. Re:BGPMon Analysis by mbone · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that they did this transfer recently ? Have a link ? It is not trivial to do on short notice.

    9. Re:BGPMon Analysis by mbone · · Score: 1

      Spammers do this all the time (on a temporary basis) and they might do it here.

      As far as IANA stepping in, ain't gonna happen. Too politically charged, and you don't have to announce your blocks. Lots of people (including the US DOD) use some of their blocks internally and never announce them.

  64. Re:Well now all the young urban people will p** of by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    What percentage of the MEN are victims of Male genital mutilation, as practiced by Jews, Muslims, and many Christians? When will they get around to making that illegal?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  65. Re:Well now all the young urban people will p** of by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and my government treated my foreskin as damage and routed around it... causing damage to me. MGM Bill FTW!

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  66. Roits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BBC is reporting that Egypt is on alert for mass protests. Maybe they are trying to cut the protestors comunications.

    1. Re:Roits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is roits what you get when a bunch of pumped up jocks get angry?

  67. In Australia... by apopberz · · Score: 1

    We turfed out our Prime Minister and no one really cared. Egypt tries the same thing and they get grounded. No SMS! no internet! and you're not leaving the house until your chores are done!

    1. Re:In Australia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We never turfed Rudd. That was party politics.

      Unless you're meaning someone before, in which case how is that relevant to the times?

    2. Re:In Australia... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Let this be a lesson to you: healthy functioning democracies are BORING.

  68. Free market is not the prerequisite for democracy. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    It's the other way around. Here's a hint - you can vote without paying money for that privilege.

    You are also confusing democracy with capitalism and (among others) missing the prerequisites of "liberty" and "freedom" (slaves were almost always free to communicate with each other).
    Also, you seem to be confusing "education" to Tee-Vee shows.

    And are you seriously suggesting Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer and David Caruso as cultural ambassadors of USA and democracy in general?

    *That’s* what they fear about us. Not that we’ll bomb them into oblivion, but that their own kids, raised on our pop culture, will vote them off the island.

    Seriously.
    Read a book sometimes (one without pictures) and watch a foreign movie (one with subtitles, in non-English language) now and then.

    Or go to Wikipedia and look up words like despotims and dictatorship.
    Also, oligarchy, plutocracy and tyranny.

    Here's a teaser. In most of those regimes - PEOPLE DON'T GET TO VOTE AT ALL! Really! Look it up.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  69. Re:"Egypt Shuts Off All land-based Internet Access by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    There are at least a couple of satphone networks (irridium and inmarsat) offering "worldwide" coverage and both of them offer (very expensive) data services. I believe they have been pressured to shut off service in some countries though.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  70. One year early... by ZigZagJoe · · Score: 1

    The zombies have broken out. Grab your shotguns.

  71. Re:"Egypt Shuts Off All land-based Internet Access by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Depends if you want that 'on'.
    When it came to a satellite phone kill (Chechen leader Dzokhar Dudayev), Russia had to ask the NSA for help in 1996.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_Dudayev#Death_and_legacy
    Who knows what export quality tracking systems can be bought via the EU, China, Israel ect. ?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  72. Reminiscent by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

    "Mr. President! There's riots in the streets! It's chaos!"

    "Shut. Down. Everything."

    --
    Sent from my CR-48
  73. Re:"Egypt Shuts Off All land-based Internet Access by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Iridium covers the planet. They may decline to sell service in some areas for regulatory issues, but there's pretty much nowhere they won't work from. Many satellites cover Egypt. However the number selling Internet service directly to people in Egypt may be zero, but that wouldn't stop anyone from buying from outside the country and taking it in, as long as they let you in with the gear.

  74. Disorganized protest then! Yay! by bronney · · Score: 1

    So instead of knowing exactly where they're rallying and deploying sufficient forces to play with, the cops now knows nothing and will deal with disorganized protests. 1up ftw you noobs. I don't think the angry peeps are going to stfu just cause they ran out of internet.

  75. Re:"Egypt Shuts Off All land-based Internet Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iridium claims to cover the entire Earth.

  76. Re:Well now all the young urban people will p** of by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

    Well a rather large number, and it is promoted by the US as an anti AIDS measure, for measure the study that "proved" this showed that there was 60% less AIDS carried in the circumcised men group after some period of time, it kind of forgot that the quantity of affected people was very close to statistic uncertainty...
    So I disaprouve...

    But this said, assuming that both mutilation would be made under ideal medical circumstance (ha!) you would still have a large group of women unable to attain orgasm (except apparently a very small "lucky" group) vs a very small minority of men similarly affected (well only the unlucky one that god a bad complication)

    So comparing the two is misleading, like AIDS vs Influensa well both can be survived and both can kill I know wich I'd choose..

  77. Fax machines by siriuskase · · Score: 1

    Don't forget fax, it is still a more difficult to censor mode of communication.

    --
    If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    1. Re:Fax machines by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Or just meet at a bar or library. Do a bit of legwork.

  78. Don't give up on old media in the USA by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    Rachel Maddow is doing regular reports about the situation in Egypt.

    The media isn't as bad as most naysayers would have you believe.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:Don't give up on old media in the USA by Beerdood · · Score: 1

      Even foxnews.com has this as the top story! Quite surprised actually

      --
      Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
    2. Re:Don't give up on old media in the USA by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Whenever Fox puts something out as a story, you need to ask yourself, what's their angle? How does this feed into their narrative? You know which ones I'm talking about (US is the best, Liberals are at it again and trying to destroy America, Security over freedom, middle east is scary, etc)

    3. Re:Don't give up on old media in the USA by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's *that* insidious.

      Then again, it could be. It's clear they're out to present a preconceived narrative, it's hard not to try to see it, then again this is a pretty cut and dry story. I don't think the rightwing noisemachine has figured out what it's spin is going to be. on one hand, yes, military interests dictate we support who's supporting us, on the other hand, if revolution comes in Egypt and the new Government does play ball, then why spin?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  79. Well Iraq was progressive... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    until we bombed them into the stone age. Other than that I think he's pretty much spot on. Saudi Arabia's a hell hole for everyone except the super wealthy. Iran's not a nice place to be either. Afghanistan & Pakistan have rampant poverty & drug violence. I guess there's Israel. I know damn little about them so they could be progressive, probably are.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Well Iraq was progressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I guess there's Israel. I know damn little about them"

      seconded.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

    2. Re:Well Iraq was progressive... by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      "Middle Eastern" and "Muslim" are not interchangeable. Iraq was not a Muslim nation - it's government was entirely secular. Then again, if you think that *Israel* is a Muslim state, you really shouldn't even be joining the conversation.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Well Iraq was progressive... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I guess there's Israel. I know damn little about them so they could be progressive, probably are.

      Considering that the O.P. was talking about "muslim states" and Israel is Jewish, you're right: you really do know damn little about them!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Well Iraq was progressive... by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Informative

      until we bombed them into the stone age.

      Really? Saddam gave women equal legal status, sure, but "legal status" under Saddam meant whatever Saddam's mood on a given day was. If Saddam's sons felt like raping your daughters... which seemed to be their favorite hobby... then that was the law. If that's your idea of progress, you can keep it.

      I think what you're going for is that Iraq under Saddam was secular, rather than just progressive. Secular doesn't necessarily equal progress. The Soviet Union , after all, had universal education, health care, and near-equal incomes. And everyone was near-equal miserable. Slaves usually are.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    5. Re:Well Iraq was progressive... by gtall · · Score: 1

      You mean if you weren't a Kurd or a Shi'ite, then Iraq was progressive.

  80. Propabullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...And?

    Do tell, I pray thee, what the difference between a Monarchy and dynastic control of a purported Republic is? Or do you not consider two Bushes - with a third undoubtedly on the way eventually, and nearly two Clintons, to be a problem?

    The only difference between a Monarchy and a Republic is there are less bullshit political ads on television.

  81. Why bother? Is it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I was there, and the government decided to turn off all internet. I'd probably not mess around with POTS modems and crap to try to fight them. If they have that much drive to keep information from getting in out they're likely to come shoot me for trying. Slashdot and Facebook probably aren't worth battling the government for.

  82. What exactly IS a Muslim state then? by denzacar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One where there are many Muslims?
    Well, is a Germany a Muslim state? Plenty of Turkish Muslims there? How 'bout France with all them Algerians?
    Or all those Muslims don't really count, cause they are not TRUE Muslims?

    Or are you talking about countries run by sharia law?
    Egypt is a "semi-presidential republic" where religious parties are illegal.

    Or let's turn that around... Which western countries (excluding Vatican) are Christian? And please, specify which denomination.
    Or how about simply - is America Catholic, Protestant or Mormon? Come on... we all know that all that secular bullshit is just for show.
    Come on... Who's their Cloud Daddy?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:What exactly IS a Muslim state then? by a+whoabot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You: "Or are you talking about countries run by sharia law?"

      Why not?
      An Overview of the Egyptian Legal System and Legal Research by Dr. Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab:

      "The Egyptian legal system is built on the combination of Islamic (Shariah) law and Napoleonic Code, which was first introduced during Napoleon Bonaparteâ(TM)s occupation of Egypt and the subsequent education and training of Egyptian jurists in France. ...
      According to the 1980 amendment of the Constitution, Islamic Law (Sharia) became the principal source of legislative rules. Such wording simply implies that any new law that is being enacted or considered for enactment should not be in contravention of any prevailing principles of Islamic Law (Sharia). ...
      Prior to the 1980 amendment, Islamic Law (Sharia) was merely a source, amongst other sources, for legislative rules."

      So what was your point?

    2. Re:What exactly IS a Muslim state then? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I can't give you a precise definition, but we can start with a working one - if the country has an actively enforced blasphemy and/or apostasy law on the books that specifically protects Islam, then it is an Islamic state. Like Egypt.

      Then again, I don't see what this has to do with the current events, as, so far as I can tell, the opposition is not any less religious, and possibly significantly more so.

    3. Re:What exactly IS a Muslim state then? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      I think the reason the government is scared right now is that the secular opposition and the religious fundamentalist opposition all seem to be on board with the protests. In other words, they've finally decided they hate the Mubaraks more than they hate each other, and that portends badly for the Mubarak government.

  83. Pretty much... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    To some degree, the term "Muslim state" is a misnomer.

    In fact, it is silly to label any country that claims to have a democratic electoral system according to religious choices of its people.
    Freedom of choice is a cornerstone of every democracy. Having a "state religion" kinda limits that choice and that freedom.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Pretty much... by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      . . . In God We Trust.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    2. Re:Pretty much... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      In fact, it is silly to label any country that claims to have a democratic electoral system according to religious choices of its people.

      What? It's perfectly sensible to do so. If people believe in X they'll elect a government that supports X, and it will be an adjectival-form-of-X country.

      Works whether X is socialism, fascism, or pastafarianism. Or indeed creationism.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  84. Re:Well now all the young urban people will p** of by hrimhari · · Score: 1

    Not in my life time, I hope.

    Unless you're a "victim" yourself, please stop preaching against my right of having a cleaner penis for me and my descendants.

    --
    http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
  85. Hey Egypt by apopberz · · Score: 1

    We're running out of IPs http://penrose.uk6x.com/ can we have yours if you're not going to use them?

  86. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A communications disruption can mean only one thing - invasion"

  87. Come visit Egypt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ironically, I have seen a sudden increase in the tourism commercials on TV encouraging visiting Egypt.

  88. Re:This is unacceptable (completing the picture) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    South America's rampant corruption, America's warmongering...

  89. I resemble that! by denzacar · · Score: 1

    I'm actually *Bosnian - which means that I'm at least partially Muslim (even if I'm an atheist and regardless whether I feel like one or not - just because I'm not a Serb or Croat) and most definitely - stupid.
    That's our main national trait.

     
     
     
    *Funny thing is, our constitution is perhaps the most racist one since Germans decided to pack all European Jews into concentration camps.
    We have THREE presidents (plus one more for Republika Srpska) - but they MUST be one from each major ethnic group.
    So... Unless you are Serb, Croat or Bosniak - you can't be a president.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:I resemble that! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Unless you are Serb, Croat or Bosniak

      So, how do they tell one from another (aside from "I said so")?

  90. mod parent up by davros-too · · Score: 1

    useful information

    --
    In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.
  91. If worse comes to worse... by zelkovamoon · · Score: 1

    We should go back to the good ol days! No, I'm not talking messenger pigeon. I'm talking messenger fish! Honestly, who in the world would see messenger fish coming. Nobody that's who. And that is why it is ingenious.

    1. Re:If worse comes to worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, who in the world would see messenger fish coming. Nobody that's who.

      I guess that nobody includes the recipient.

  92. sms not down. by Endlessnight · · Score: 1

    i have texted with some one from my family that is in egypt right now.. thay say its pretty calm at the town there in. got an answer pretty fast too.. but thay dont use egyptian cellphones, thay have ones from our country..

    1. Re:sms not down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you could setup an SMS to web gateway. Texting slashdot articles in small chunks

  93. Egypt has shut off all Internet access. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is true, then even a modem won't help. Maybe they mean they shut off all broadband>

  94. What? No calls for anyone to be shot? by denzacar · · Score: 2

    If I say I'm "pro-left" do I at least get a token "you deserve what you should get"?
    Granted... I'm not a Democrat Congresswoman OR an nine-year-old girl but still... show me some proper hate.

    Falsely accusing one side of violence, as the above mentioned did throughout 2010 election campaign, despite most of the actual incidents of violence coming from the left, is a 'veiled' invitation to respond in kind. How do you expect more extreme elements on the left to respond when they are constantly being told that about violent fascist and racist right-wingers are taking over in the form of Tea Party (which in reality is a peaceful and law-abiding movement if there ever was one). That is the impression one gets when listening to them and it is a form of incitement to violence.

    I keep a copy of this post you made for whenever you come trolling by. It never gets old.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:What? No calls for anyone to be shot? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0

      If I say I'm "pro-left" do I at least get a token "you deserve what you should get"?

       
      No, you should be kept around as an example of a genuine knucklehead, preferably in a corner and with a dunce hat on. I can't draw pictures here but let me try to explain it in simple words so you can understand.
       
      What I said in your quote was that the false accusations against Tea Party in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting were themselves a form of incitement to violence - hence the record number of death threats against Palin and local psychos in Arizona threatening to kill Tea Party leaders. Did you really somehow translate this as as me saying that people who were shot there deserved to be killed?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  95. From an Egyptian long time member by kbahey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is what I wrote earlier today Views from an Egyptian.

    Mod it up if you think it is informative.

  96. Oh come on... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    What kind of generalization are those? Way too specific.

    Next you're gonna say only SOME Irish are drunks.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  97. Re:Free market is not the prerequisite for democra by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    "Free market is not the prerequisite for democracy. "

    Who said it was? Where in my post did I even utter the words "free market"?

    But the ability to communicate with peers, and belief in freedom of speech and association, upward class mobility, fundamental human rights, and a desire to oppose corruption rather than join it, *are* prerequisites for democracy. And America's communications devices and pop culture *do* embody those beliefs. Yes, even the ones directed by Michael Bay.

    "Read a book sometimes"

    I read lots of books. Right now I'm reading "Being Wrong" by Kathryn Schultz, which you might benefit from. But to believe that nothing can be learned or gained from mass media and pop culture is pompous, arrogant, and short-sighted. If I should "read a book sometime", you should listen to Bob Dylan.

  98. The last link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The last link to the Alexandria gateway is about 70ms"

    That sounds downright epic out of context, like something Han Solo would say...

  99. It's not about the USA by AmElder · · Score: 1

    Resist the impulse to assume the riots in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen are all about the USA. I guarantee you, the people on the streets of these countries by and large don't want to live in America or a make their country more like the US in general. They have their own values and desires that you might find surprising.

    These angry people are feeling their power as a mob. What we know right now is that these rioters oppose autocratic and corrupt government. Let's say they share those values with Hamas, the Peasants and Workers Party of India, the government of Somaliland, Wikileaks, the US State Department, and the Tea Party. It's much more important, however, what they're for. Whether that means they support -- to take ideas from the parent post -- democracy, free markets, pop-culture, and free expression more than do the leaders they oppose, remains to be seen.

    (reposed after logging in)

    1. Re:It's not about the USA by chip_s_ahoy · · Score: 1

      Ok, it's Ok, Calm, Calm, Calm. Take your medicine.

  100. DIY WAN + Satellite Comms during a revolution by nigeljw · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is a practical guide for the Egyptians to set up a new independent network. For the instructions, skip to below the story.

    I live on a Island, Newfoundland, on which the first transatlantic wireless telegraph was communicated to Cornwall, England.

    I grew up driving all around the Island on the weekends with my Dad installing and servicing satellite up-links. It is his own business so he worked six or seven days a week when Newfoundland's economy was in the pits. His company has since become successful, even though wired communication companies always criticize the strength of satellite signals (which is bullshit, I always get very clean signals in a city with a huge amount of snow). He also does work in other electrical systems (power meters, wireless wide area networks, etc.). He has also always kept the same raggedy tag crew for his employees, who are a great group of people. Instead of reducing the salaries of his employees during the recession, he instead made up for the loss out of his paycheck. I am proud of my dad. I am sure my mother is proud of him as well in heaven. When I was younger, I liked to look at my Dad as a futuristic Marconi. I have since become a seasoned software developer myself.

    Instructions:

    The first thing I would do to establish a truly independent internet in Egypt is to set up a wide area network all around Cairo. Wireless towers throughout the city. Redundancy here is key, since if the government destroys some towers, others will still be online. The antennae only have to be separated by about 30 meters. The towers can easily be crafted since the antennae are lightweight.

    The hardware that is needed are a two WiLan radios for a point to point network. Omni directional antennae are needed for short range hub regions for the end user connections, and more powerful directional antennae are needed for long range point to point connections, plus any relay stations require two directional antennae (incoming and outgoing) and a repeater. Two RF connectors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_connector) for each high grade coaxial cable. The towers are easily constructed out of steel. Cable cutters and proper crimping tools are a must (substitutes could be found). Wrenches: 9/16, and 3/4. A power meter is required to read the signal while peaking (positioning) and polarizing (rotating) the dish. You hook up the leads to the core of the cable and the outer shield.

    Satellite up-links are required to connect this localized network to the outside world. Earth station hardware should not be that difficult to find. Here in Newfoundland, almost all gas stations use earth stations for their Interac communications. I set most of them up myself when I was working before I went to university. Any large and small commercial cable satellite dishes can be used as down-link stations to transmit incoming information.

    The hardware needed are a RF Head (Telesat here in Canada make high quality transmission, I'd say Qualcomm make them as well) and a Hughes PES 5000 (I highly recommend this model, PES stands for personal earth station.). Two RF connectors are required to connect the coaxial cable between the RF Head and the PES. To peak the dish, a power meter is required. It is a similar process as for directional wireless antennae. An inclinometer is required to set the elevation, though this could be done by site. Down-links can be set up with only an LNB, which is a specialized/simplified type of RF Head that only allows for incoming signals (low noise block used with any commercial tv satellite). Down-links generally do not need to be polarized since they do not transmit and only receive. Always peak the dish with the transmit function off, then turn on the transmit function and polarize the RF Head, by rotating its body. Never stand in front of the dish when the transmit function is on. Its not necessarily that harmful, but it can disrupt the communications for other satellites if a transmit radio wave is bouncin

    1. Re:DIY WAN + Satellite Comms during a revolution by capnchicken · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that getting access to a foreign satellite, and then finding said satellite without the aid of a "Satellite positioning applet ... found by searching google", since there is no internet there to begin with, will be more difficult than crimping some connectors.

      Also, not sure what the wrench sizes are for, but pretty sure Egypt uses metric.

      Just sayin'

      Informative nonetheless.

      --
      A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
  101. Hell hath no fury... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...like millions of citizens with no internet access to pacify themselves with.

  102. Logic is logical by fuzznutz · · Score: 2

    Therein lies the rub. In order to make gun control work, the government must not only outlaw ALL guns for the unwashed masses, it must also confiscate ALL guns from those same unwashed masses. This is exactly the fear presented by anti-gun control activists. The GP's logic is quite sound. Gun control cannot work in the half assed manner that proponents seem to always encourage. It is an all or nothing proposition.

    And as you pointed out, total control can only reduce the availability. It's a cultural thing. Despite the most well-intentioned rants by gun control activists, you cannot change culture by fiat.

    1. Re:Logic is logical by blindseer · · Score: 1

      The GP's logic is quite sound. Gun control cannot work in the half assed manner that proponents seem to always encourage. It is an all or nothing proposition.

      Right, it cannot be half way. Gun control will only work if no one can have a gun. I say we start that by destroying all the guns owned by the government.

      What is the goal of gun control? To reduce crime? It has never seemed to work anywhere in history. We still had crime before firearms were invented. Where gun control is strictly enforced we see people getting killed with fires, run over by cars, cut up with knives and swords, beaten with boards and bricks, all kinds of mayhem continues without guns. Gangs run wild in London with only their fists and feet beating up old men and women because they cannot carry the most basic of self defense tools available in modern society. They can't even have pepper spray in the UK as that is considered a firearm just as much as a sawed off shotgun. Because the penalty is just as strict for pepper spray as it is to have a sawed off shotgun take a guess what the criminals arm themselves with if given the resources to get any weapon they want?

      Gun control cannot reduce crime because it is not the gun that puts evil in the hearts and minds of people. Gun control can only do the opposite since it puts the weak at the mercy of the strong. A handgun is a great equalizer. Since law abiding people outnumber criminals in this world the equal stance of the law abiding and the criminal means that the criminal will almost always lose. By removing that equalizer the criminal has the high ground.

      The government has power over the people that must be held in check by those people. Since no government will disarm itself before disarming the people that means gun control gives the government absolute power over the people.

      I recall a saying about what absolute power can do.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Logic is logical by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What is the goal of gun control? To reduce crime? It has never seemed to work anywhere in history. We still had crime before firearms were invented. Where gun control is strictly enforced we see people getting killed with fires, run over by cars, cut up with knives and swords, beaten with boards and bricks, all kinds of mayhem continues without guns.

      You begin by denying that it *reduces* crime, and then you give evidence that it won't *eliminate* it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  103. On the upside by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every Egyptian has been spared the possibility of reading that moronic post.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  104. 2 hours to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4chan will deal with internet kill-switch, most police now side with the street

  105. Re:Well now all the young urban people will p** of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I have to say that whenever I hear people talk about circumcision as some terrible, horrific mutilation to boys, it's usually women and occasionally guys who haven't had it done. I've never personally known, or even heard someone on the internet claiming to be, a guy who was circumcised and was upset by it. I am circumcised, and honestly find these people highly insulting to me -- telling me, who never gave my circumcision a second thought, that I'm horribly mutilated and we must prevent anyone else from having to end up like me.

  106. A Prelude to Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Egypt Government is in the initial stages of marshalling its federal troops for murder.

    Likely, the US, UK, France and Germany have been briefed and have given approval.

    Next will come raids on Radio and Television Stations, Banks will be Federalized and Closed.

    Telephone service will be ended.

    Borders will be secured, not to keep the curious out, rather to keep citizens in (to be murdered).

    Sharp-shooting squads are likely in place now.

    Troops with tank and heavy artillery will close off Cario.

    Water and sewage utilities will be shutdown at least 1 hour prior to the military operations.

    Troops will move in along the main arteries, killing indiscriminately to herd citizens to parks and the central city area.

    Mechanized artillery will then begin a barage of nerve gas and other toxins on the citizenery.

    While the military operations are ongoing, leaders of US, UK, France and Germany will make public boradcasts to their citizens of their solitadarity for the Mubarak Government in the face of Terrorist attacks and condem the protesters as terrorists.

    In 24 hours after the military operations commenced, up to 3 million civilians will be dead with mininal military losses.

    And just think, if by June 2012 Obama's pole numbers are at 15% approval, he will do exactly the same thing to Washington, D.C. in order to remain the last elected President of the United States of America.

    -308
     

  107. Work arounds by cyberfringe · · Score: 1

    It depends on what you want to do. If you want to communicate with other people nearby in the city, then peer-to-peer networking is the way to do it. Set up mobile hotspots with open access. With VoIP you can even use your mobile handsets. Vulnerable to jamming, snooping and RDF. If you want to reconnect with the global network, then a satellite link is one way, or packet data over ham freq, maybe bounced off the ionosphere.

    --
    There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
  108. Re:Who is responsible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The telco may not be directly responsible. Vodafone would most likely purchase a link from one of the main telcos over there. If their provider cuts the connection then there is nothing they can do. Their network will function but traffic won't leave the network.

    I had no idea a common, monosyllabic word like "all" could be so difficult to understand.

    The story is "Egypt Shuts Off ALL Internet Access", not "Egypt Separates Its Functional Not-Shut-Off Network From Rest of Internet." You see, what you propose wouldn't shut off anything, nor would it encompass ALL access to heterogeneous interconnected packet-switched networks that use IP and related protocols.

    Reading comprehension: use it! If you were using it, fix it and use it again.

  109. UUCP and Netnews by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Even if you have a dial-up modem, what are you going to connect to?

    One of my modems is set up for dialup backup to the broadband connection - which wouldn't be particularly useful in this crisis. But I have others.

    I also have a UUCP connection to another old networking curmudgeon who keeps old-style mail and netnews running. (I hear these are useful for people in countries where some people don't have broadband, always-on, or even fast dialup, Internet connections.)

    At the moment I have my MX records pointed to send incoming mail to his servers, where much of the spam is filtered out and the rest is stored until my own MTA machine polls for it, which it does twice an hour.

    My UUCP daemon can hit him over the Internet, which it does by preference. But when something is wrong with that (like my ISPs servers being hosed) UUCP falls back on dialup. One of my modems (dedicated mostly to this) grabs the FAX line and does things the old fashioned way.

    I have in the past set up my portable computers to also exchange mail with my home mail server this way - though these days I usually bring up a dialup or WiFi Internet connection and SSH to the desktop, reading the mail there.

    At the moment I don't have any Netnews groups set up. But I could arrange for a feed of a small one, or set, perhaps an alt. group that had been quickly set up specifically to handle news on whatever government blockage was in progress. Netnews runs on a flooding protocol and includes big name networking sites that have open web hosting, which (when located in a "safe for net" place) can bridge it to the rest of the world.

    Periodically polled UUCP didn't stop working, or even get fully retired, when most of the traffic moved over to the big-I Internet, with its direct server/client connections and one- or two-hop email handoffs. If the government in the affected area didn't manage to totally cut off ordinary phone calls, UUCP carrying netnews and email could be set up quickly. Netnews' flooding protocool would insure that the news made it out within a few hours if there was a way for it to get out. Email might need explicit route addressing (like the bang-ist system) at first, due to the security and technical issues of setting up automated routing. And you can forget about video - you'd be lucky to be able to squeeze an occasional still picture through the bandwidth bottlenecks.

    But it's not something where we need to invent a new wheel. The old ones just need to be remounted and regreased.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:UUCP and Netnews by aiht · · Score: 1

      My UUCP daemon can hit him over the Internet ...

      Damn, I've gotta set me up one of those! I often find myself wanting to hit people over the Internet.

  110. Mobile Phone workaround question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible to write a mobile phone app that sends audio modem on the phone carrier?
    I doubt it for IPhone bur how about Android?

    Of course the mobile phones may be cut off soon too.

  111. perfect application for HALE airborne rf repeater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had the resources I'd be investing into high altitude long endurance aircraft systems that can act as communication relays. The best example for this would the Zephyr UAV http://www.qinetiq.com/home_farnborough_airshow/unmanned_air_systems/zephyr.html

    Much cheaper than satellite technology, mobile, and flexible. Fly one of these at 90000 feet above Egypt and it is unlikely that they will be shooting it down.

  112. Egyptian hams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup, not many hams there at all. Also we do not have a third part traffic agreement with Egypt so cannot pass third party info from and too Egypt.

  113. Maybe... by DivemasterJoe · · Score: 1

    Egypt drew the short straw in a secret international lottery to decide who looses all their IPV4 address blocks back into the pool...

  114. What does this mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I though we wanted to "impose" democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Did we aim wrong and shoot our democracy bombs in a different direction? Are Tunisian and Egyptians being proactive or reactive?

  115. Breaking news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Government attempts to stop the flow of information to the Egyptian people and end the riots by shutting off internet access backfires when thousands of angry young Egyptian males find their Starcraft 2 access cut off and leave their parents basements to join the riots.

  116. Free Speech or Stone Age by kozubik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Egyptian authorities have the ability to shut down free speech in 2011, but turning off the Internet is not enough - they must completely halt modern commerce.

    Since they are not, as far as I can imagine, performing mass jamming of the 2.4ghz spectrum, anyone with a laptop and "wi-fi" connectivity has everything they need to conduct insurrection. This concept is known as "Free Speech or Stone Age":

    http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2009/06/free-speech-or-stone-age.html

    Unless you remove the general purpose tools of modern commerce, filtering (or even disabling) the Internet will not stop speech.

  117. smoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm gonna blow a bowl and watch. WTF?

  118. Think of the chldren by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine how much protection they're offering the children by turning off the internet. No more porn, no more luring children away through evil chat rooms. It's gotta be wonderful.

  119. You think the US or UK would behave differently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If faced with serious anti .gov rebellion, do you really think any of the western 'progressive' governments would behave any better? Any time there's been serious problems in a democratic country, individual rights are always the first thing on the legislative altar to be burnt in the name of fixing the problem.

  120. Re:Free market is not the prerequisite for democra by sempir · · Score: 1

    OK.....leave out David Caruso.

    --
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  121. Short range FM by unlocked · · Score: 0

    Hell make a small FM transmitter and tune for a unused freq on the radio and distribute them as repeaters or other mass dissemination use. Like clandestine radios for the French resistance. These days the design could be the size of a cell phone and transmit a fair distance.

  122. Amateur Radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd use Amateur Radio to get information out. The only thing that shuts down Amateur Radio in the U.S. is if POTUS (President of the United States) issues a War Powers Declaration.

    Wayno/KA5FVE

  123. Completely off... by gwolf · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry to inform you, you are completely mistaken here.

    "Old style" Egypt was among the Arab world most enlightened countries. When I visited (while I was living in Israel, ~1995), I was reallly surprised to see how many older (then, ~50yr and older) people spoke in perfect English and were very well cultured. No, it's not (not just?) that they lived the last years of strong British influence, but that the Egyptian society was heavily open, westernized.

    From what I talked there, what I understood, what I saw... The younger generation strongly leans more to a more traditional way of life. Probably, if they manage to overthrow Mubarak's regime, they will choose (and you cannot say that's not a democratic process!) a more Islam-friendly, maybe Islam-abiding regime.

  124. Internet kill switch? That's nuts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The internet was originally designed as an unbreakable communications platform in the event of a nuclear attack. An internet kill switch would pretty much defeat that purpose?

    Obama: Looks like I'm getting too much bad press on the internet. Time to hit the internet kill switch.
    Kim Jong Il: Ah, the Americans turned off the internet!!! PRESS THE BUTTON!!!

  125. Exactly by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    Is the same in Latin America. The second easiest way to be a popular politician here is to be anti-american, since almost every brutal dictatorship here with the exception of Castro's Cuba was supported by the american government. In Mexico, my country, we had the choice between a very moderate leftist and a supposed christian democrat in the 2006 elections. The US National Endowment for Democracy bought the leadership of the tree mayor parties to keep the status quo, the mass media and the Church illegally supported the campaign of our current president, and now we have the most dangerous city in the world, the economy in the gutters and vast swats of the country under the rule of mafia bosses, meanwhile our christian fundamentalist in several state's legislatures have forbade by law any abortion, even miscarriages -good luck with that- or abortions necessary to save the pregnant woman's life; the US got the devil they know, but got a war in their southern frontier and an even worst problem with illegal immigrants that will get absolutely out of control if the mexican state collapses, that is the most likely scenario. Blowback all over again.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  126. Please mod parent up by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    that's all.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  127. No so much mistaken as delusional by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Egypt has been run for nearly three decades by the same guy backed by the same military leaders. Doesn't that tell you something? It has had large scale terrorist attacks and violently represses its Christian minority. A lot of the 9/11 attackers were from Egypt.

    Oh yes, a woman who dares to walk without her head covered won't be killed, at least not on the street. If that is your measure of progressive then well, pretty much most of the world is progressive.

    Oh, progressive for a muslim state. Bit of bigotted statement isn't it? If all men (and women) are to be equal then we should all judge them equally. The freedom in a nation should therefor be measured against ALL other nations, not just against other nations with a religion X as the national religion. A European or even an American would NOT find living in Egypt to be progressive. All though to be fair, considering recent election results, there are plenty of Europeans who seem to like the idea of a repressive regime.

    Mind you, you could also simply have your head in the sand like this guy below who claims the Christian minority does alright... clearly not been following the news recently.

    Is Egypt that bad? Yes, compared to north european, Canada and most of the USA, yes. That they shut of all internet access over some protests should be a bloody big clue. Is it as bad as some other nations? No. But what kind of standard is that? Pretty much any place on eartth is better then Somalia and North Korea so that is all right then? If you don't have massive death camps and a total break down of all law and order you are doing okay? Low standards indeed.

    The real problem in Egypt and Tunesia is not so much a direct nazi style abuse of power but the total grid lock that the system has become. Nothing moves, nothing happens in Egypt. It ain't even just pure corruption. That can work, that can make things happen just for money. But in Egypt corrupt officials STILL only take money from you if you are from the side of town. You got to know people to be able to buy people.

    Meanwhile, as said, nations should be judged by the best of other nations not the worsed because THAT is what the people on the street are doing. They SEE more and more the rest of world and see that a society can function differently. That there are places on earth where merit at least counts for something, where jobs can be had even if your dad is not connected. That there is such huge un-employment should tell you something. The country isn't doing anything. It exists and so does its population but where are its achievements? Where can its ever better educated youth push themselves and their nation forward?

    No where and they are getting very upset about this. Idle hands are the devils etc etc. Meanwhile, the religious right is seeing the youth turning away from the old certainties (It is Allah's will) and at the same time some youth flee to the same. Leaders seeking legitimacy seek out the religious and then find them going out of control (see Reagan courting the religous right to victory, then Bush does the same and gets the tea party... OOPS).

    Egypt is an old fashioned military style dictatorship that survived for a long time because it managed to keep things running without to much repression and out right poverty. But that doesn't mean people will be satisfied they aren't being killed or starving till eternity. They want jobs, a future, more freedom, and basically they want something to happen so tomorrow won't be the same as today. That is the problem with poor people, when they got nothing to loose, they are willing to fight for anything. Why do you THINK China is so hot on economic growth? They got 1 billion people controlled by a peoples army.

    Egypt has an "elite" (as in not a peoples army) army controlling a population that isn't going anywhere that has tripled in size. They have seen change is possible. And anything is better then another day unemployed living below the poverty level for the 3rd generation.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  128. Eh no. by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Like most military units, snipers act mostly on other snipers on the field of combat. Archers first job is the other sides archers. Cavalery first checks the other sides cavalery. Fighter planes first got to control the other sides fighter planes (see the nice move by the Nazi's to tether their fighters to their bombers during the battle of Britain that nicely lost them the battle) etc etc.

    Only if the sniper is sure that there are no other snipers around can he hunt other units. Else the first regular soldier he kills will be the end of him as the other sides sniper counters.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Eh no. by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Real world isnt really like RPS style RPGs anymore.

      Assymetrical warefare means that your stealth fighters never face enemies stealth fighters, your nuclear submarines never face their nuclear submarines, your tomahowks never face theirs, and their sucide bombers never face yours.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Eh no. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      So snipers never shoot at anyone who isn't a direct threat to them right now? Why don't they just stay hidden then, so that even enemy snipers aren't a threat to them?

      An air superiority fighter exists in order to shoot down other fighters. A sniper on the other hand exists to shoot individual enemy non-sniper soldiers and happens to also be good at counter-sniping. Or do you really think that is there were no enemy snipers that we wouldn't deploy any?

  129. Fax by QuincyDurant · · Score: 1

    Brought down the Soviet Union.

  130. Re:Free market is not the prerequisite for democra by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    Who said it was? Where in my post did I even utter the words "free market"?

    Whoops, okay I did. Mea culpa. But the focus of my post was on communications systems that allow free speech, and cultural products that emphasize liberty, equality, and self-determination. I do think a free market helps with the self-determination thing.

  131. I'm pro-gun control, but .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they turn off the internet, then you can safely assume things are soo bad that it's time for people to form militias and shoot politicians, corporate execs, police, etc. on sight. Sorry guys, but if you shut down civilized society that society should burn you to a crisp.

    1. Re:I'm pro-gun control, but .. by LiquidLink57 · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why the Second Amendment exists. The people who wrote that amendment had just fought a war for two years against a tyrannical government. They sure as hell couldn't have done that without guns. And they knew the day would come when it would have to happen again, so they made possessing firearms a right that the government could never take away.

      The Second Amendment isn't so hicks can hunt raccoons - it's so we have the means by which we can keep our government in check.

      Fear the government that fears your gun.

  132. Re:"Egypt Shuts Off All land-based Internet Access by aiht · · Score: 1

    Do any of the satellite providers cover Egypt?

    You must not have read the GP's post properly - he already mentioned that they are expansive!
    <G>

  133. Reminds me of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Take down post, telephone, telegraph." -Lenin

  134. store and forward networking for mobiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    over bluetooth and wifi .

    Add mail and usenet style apps with signing and encryption and you have a tool which can be used securely by anyone with line of site and which maximises the chance of getting info out of a blackout zone . Plus for kids it would bypass phone charges .

  135. International calls? by dbune · · Score: 1

    I hope they do not cut off the international calls to 'completely' cut off any outflow of news/events/information. Hate these 'dictator' governments.

  136. Take their names down by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    A message to all during evil govt times.

    Take down the names or remember the names of the evil police forces, then when govts change and times are good and safe, sue the crap out of them, or steal their cars and/or ruin their lives using legal methods via new the legal authorities.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:Take their names down by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They can't be in two places at once, so just burn their houses down while they're out "maintaining order".

      I don't know why the Iranians didn't do that to those shits on motorbikes.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  137. except in BF2 bad company by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    I sometimes in the game BF2 shoot other snipers at a distance that are a direct threat.

    But shooting civilians, come on Mr Sniper, get a real job you useless sod of shit, no people skills to work in an office? no skills to work at a pizza place? Hope your karma is good enough.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  138. Randy Marsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    had something to say about this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGTBBP09uPo

  139. phones down by confused+one · · Score: 1

    it's being reported the phones are down too. No POTS modems.

    1. Re:phones down by cpghost · · Score: 1

      In most countries, the fully digital backbone of the POTS uses the same SONET/ATM links than the Internet. If they shut down SONET switches at the international gateway, the POTS is bound to go down too.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:phones down by confused+one · · Score: 1

      fair enough. And it makes sense.

  140. The Net interprets censorship as damage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and routes around it.

    Oh!

  141. The Power Of Pop Culture by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Ah, soft power.
    I'll agree with the +5 Insightful here. One of my favorite Slashdot posts in awhile.
    I [i]had[/i] previously heard of a desire for Western consumer goods as a nail in the coffin of Soviet-style communism.

    I too have wondered about the power pop culture has. As someone who thinks positively of its better components (it’s easy evne if you don’t have an agenda to attack something via its worst prominent aspects), this was a very uplifting read.

    I have wondered why social conservatives of various stripes, domestic or foreign, are so afraid of it. I do notice that they seem to mask their real concerns when railing against it (and what bare their real concerns?)

    Most everyone recognizes that the children are the future, and it’s a future they all want to shape. Some of them seem to be trying to talk us in to tying ourselves down, and less and less of us are buying that. I’ve intermittently fallen into that trap myself.

    I'd add the following example, which has been my focal point for considering the issue: various pop stars displaying a highly positive attitude towards the gays.

    P.S.
    Brilliant job delineating between American ideals and the reality of some of our behavior.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  142. Propaganda it is. by h00manist · · Score: 1

    ...And?

    Do tell, I pray thee, what the difference between a Monarchy and dynastic control of a purported Republic is? Or do you not consider two Bushes - with a third undoubtedly on the way eventually, and nearly two Clintons, to be a problem?

    The only difference between a Monarchy and a Republic is there are less bullshit political ads on television.

    Agreed it's basically a formal democracy, or meritocracy, or something like that - and not a real democracy. The government is bad. The press doesn't inform well. Corporations run a mindgame on the public and representatives play theater. People also have their share in the problem, they don't inform themselves, participate, complain and organize enough.

    Bush is now gone for two years, there is someone else there now. Full real and open democracy it's not, but there is much more openness than there was before. Much of the establishment however continues as before. Without public participation, the best government in the world would become detached and cut off from reality. Life is like that, it's hard everywhere, there are only two ways -- either participation or apathy and cynicism. Each person is always free to choose which. Participation is tough, dirty, tricky and 99% pitfalls, and apathy and cynicism are easy, comfortable and pathetic. There is only one other choice - death.

    So it's generally best to pick a flag to fly and watch that's it's not a pitfall, and when it becomes obvious that it is, change your flag.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  143. hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mubarak.. all pigs have their slaughter day.. :), while you shut off the net.. egiptians sharpen their knives ;P

  144. These guys want to connect everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A leaderless movement has no head to chop off. http://bit.ly/gFtTwr

  145. Head for the ISPs, not the government offices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like the protesters need to shift their attention from the government offices to the ISPs. They're most likely less guarded by the military and the people there a lot less used to a raging mob... Should take just a few minutes to have those prefixes re-announced and then it's just a matter of defending the buildings against the military to prevent them from regaining control.

    Should also teach those ISPs to stop complying with stupid orders and stand their ground. Businesses affected by the disruptions should also look into the possibility of suing the ISPs for the disruption in connectivity as it was a controlled disruption, not an accident. If it can be done it'll teach them again to not give in to pressure and stupid orders.

    The ISPs should also look into the option of a well-armed private security force to prevent armed incursions, both from terrorists and government controlled armed forces acting as terrorists (wanted to cause serious service disruptions). Seems like they more or less have to...

  146. Haddock arrays? MOD (-1, Bullshit) by mangu · · Score: 1

    Both german-controlled france and russia took the same novel approach trying to find spies transmitting in WW2... they'd cut power to parts of the city a chunk at a time until the signal went off the air, then tear apart that area

    Nope, you've been watching too many old spy movies. That approach would never be used due to two reasons:

    1) There are better ways to find a transmitter.
    2) Batteries. What's the point in cutting power to the neighborhood if the signal keeps transmitting?

    Nowadays though with dopplars and haddock arrays they don't have to shut down the grids, but finding the actual transmitter remains very difficult.

    I've 30+ years of experience as an Electronic Engineer and don't have the remotest idea of what you mean as a "haddock array". And neither Google knows.

    Well, anyhow kudos to you, you seem to have convinced a few Slashdot moderators that you know something.

    1. Re:Haddock arrays? MOD (-1, Bullshit) by v1 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I got the name a bit wrong, it's been awhile. Adcock Array

      Also, the best place for anyone to start RDF is with the book "Transmitter Hunting - Radio Direction Finding Simplified" - http://www.homingin.com./ Build the roanoke dopplar in that book with all the mods and get it properly tweaked and you can generally kick butt on foxhunts. But its weakness is multipath, and it's very hard to implement (mobile) on HF. Use a basic LPER or something of that nature for close in. (this applies to VHF and up) Everything has a weakness in RDF. A good null loop I've found is best for HF, but you have to get initial bearings and get out of the vehicle frequently till you get close, similar to the LPER.

      Tactics and hardware are so dependent on band. Considering though that these people are going to be probably UHF, a dopplar would absolutely by the way to go for initial location. (there are companies you can buy dopplars from if you don't want to build your own, such as Dopplar Systems. (http://www.dopsys.com/) Kinda pricey tho and the roanoke's better ;) The final 200ft at UHF can be a major PITA if there are other strong signals on band. I'm used to having to find transmitters that are elaborately hidden, and more than once I've spent many minutes within spitting distance (and I mean that most literally) before finding the bugger.

      So many of the above posters are taking it for granted just what you can do to hide yourself. You're not looking for a guy holding a mic sitting on a lawn chair in the middle of his back yard beside a rig and a big dipole. And people that are in the situation on this thread have their freedom and lives on the line, they're not likely to be careless.

      Expect your government to have multiple Adcock Arrays set up and will have a fairly tight initial location within seconds of detecting your transmission. And in 15 minutes suddenly the area is crawling with police and multiple white vans with lots of antennas on their roofs. You'd better stop transmitting now.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Haddock arrays? MOD (-1, Bullshit) by v1 · · Score: 1

      oops forgot to address your "batteries" argument. ww2... tubes, not transistors. yes, you can run them off battery, but not easily, not efficiently, and certainly not at high power for any length of time. and when you are trying to operate a clandestine transmitter, portability and hidability are very important. Large flats of lead acid batteries are both hard to smuggle and hard to hide. But then again, back then, the transmitters themselves tended to be larger too. Though I'm sure there were a few, I've never read of any clandestine transmitters in ww2 that were battery powered. Got any links to share? I'd be interested in expanding my knowledge on the subject.

      Nowadays however, that's not an issue. A 9v battery and a sardine can will get you by for basics.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:Haddock arrays? MOD (-1, Bullshit) by mangu · · Score: 1

      I've never read of any clandestine transmitters in ww2 that were battery powered. Got any links to share? I'd be interested in expanding my knowledge on the subject.

      Start by this book.

    4. Re:Haddock arrays? MOD (-1, Bullshit) by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I've 30+ years of experience as an Electronic Engineer and don't have the remotest idea of what you mean as a "haddock array".

      It's an improvised one, that you make up on the spot.

      Or you get a load of people with EM hypersensitivity, and whoever has a migraine is nearest to the transmitter.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  147. Issue overrated by muckracer · · Score: 2

    For everybody flippin' out, do remember, that the eastern block country revolutions and subsequent sweep into oblivion of their governments happened largely without any use of technology. Most people on the streets had no computer, no internet, no sms, no cell phones, no landlines etc.. All they had was themselves and the determination to no longer tolerate the bullshit.
    Does technology help? Well, it can help the protesters cause. Organizing themselves, getting info out etc.. BUT, I'd wager to say, with the given possibilities over surveillance electronic communication probably hurts people more than does them good, as it provides the government forces with absolutely detailed intelligence in real-time. So turning off all that stuff might actually benefit the protesters more and be a shot in their own foot for the government.

  148. Ham radio prefers X.25, and SLIP was done by 3Com by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    there was this software called "SLIP" that was developed by Hams around the world

    Wait, what? Citation needed. AFAIK, SLIP was developed by 3Com. See RFC-1055. Whenever I have seen, heard or read of packet radio by hams, it's all based on X.25. Indeed, according to the Jargon file, hams did not originally like TCP/IP, calling it "That Crap Phil Is Pushing".

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  149. POTS? Sure. Here in the US by smchris · · Score: 1

    Used it to amuse myself on a weekend evening each of the last two summers when storms blew out the electricity.

    The problem would be finding a BBS.

  150. Renesys data on the Egypt IPSs BGP withdrawal by mork · · Score: 2

    Renesys reports that the big four ISPs in Egypt have withdrawn approximately 3,500 individual BGP routes, leaving no valid paths by which to reach the rest of the world. One of the very few exceptions to this block has been Noor Group.

    http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt-leaves-the-internet.shtml

  151. correction by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    The timestamp on the original video by AP:

    Associated Press Online Video Network
    14 hours ago - AP draws on its worldwide staff of journalists to create authoritative video clips of international and national events. Live streaming, raw video, ...
    video.ap.org/?f=None&pid=oT7qj_wiVHTbYae3scwok4_irYjJ2R8Z

    means 1am Cairo time.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  152. Re:Ham radio prefers X.25, and SLIP was done by 3C by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

    Maybe the poster is confused because of KA9Q's package?

    Or is he the Phil you're referring to?

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  153. Re:Ham radio prefers X.25, and SLIP was done by 3C by CptNerd · · Score: 1

    Well, I never went to 3Com to get SLIP, and all the documentation I got at the time I downloaded it in the late 80s mentioned the ham radio tie-in. If no Hams ever used it because of their dislike for it, I guess that makes the documents I read lies, and me a liar for repeating them. Sorry.

    --
    By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
  154. Re:Ham radio prefers X.25, and SLIP was done by 3C by CptNerd · · Score: 1

    Apparently according to him, there was no KA9Q package (that's the one I remember downloading) since Hams all hated SLIP.

    --
    By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
  155. Darwin Award by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Is there such a thing as a virtual Darwin award? If so I'd like to nominate the parent post.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  156. No WMD Guy by mdsolar · · Score: 0

    It is worth noting that the guy who told us ahead of time that there were no WMD in Iraq, Mohammad ElBaradei, is getting hit with water cannons now. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/world/middleeast/29unrest.html Wonder if he is right again?

    1. Re:No WMD Guy by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Mohammad ElBaradei is one seriously awesome dude. Seriously. He's a little late to the ol' revolution party (he was slumming it in Vienna when it kicked off), but the Egyptians could do far worse than to pick him as a leader.

    2. Re:No WMD Guy by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      All the same, my comment got modded down. The main US interest in Egypt is peace, and this guy seems to like it so I think you are right. But, it can be dangerous. Sadat was killed for accomplishing peace.

  157. Western Values by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1

    Those'd be Western values, not American values.

  158. TFA down? by bogd · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or is the article linked to in the summary ( http://www.arabist.net/blog/2011/1/28/urgent-egypt-has-shut-off-the-internet.html ) no longer online?

  159. Re:Ham radio prefers X.25, and SLIP was done by 3C by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

    That's not what he said. He said that KA9Q was not the inventor.

    What's with the polarizing dialogue? Are your Karl Rove in disguise?

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  160. No, but... by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    Well, I never went to 3Com to get SLIP, and all the documentation I got at the time I downloaded it in the late 80s mentioned the ham radio tie-in. If no Hams ever used it because of their dislike for it, I guess that makes the documents I read lies, and me a liar for repeating them. Sorry.

    No, that doesn't make you a liar. But deliberately misrepresenting my statements and turning it into a straw man false dichotomy does make you an asshole.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:No, but... by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      It gets old being told, either implicitly or explicitly, that I don't know what I'm talking about, just because the things I experienced or read weren't universally experienced or read. I got tired of it, and took it out on you. And yes, I am an asshole. Not all the time, but sometimes. I won't apologize for not deferring to your history, but I do apologize for the tone and manner of my disagreement.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
  161. Why yes, I DO have a POTS modem by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    I still have a POTS modem. Unfortunately I got rid of my land line. I no longer have a POTS to PPP in.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  162. Re:Free market is not the prerequisite for democra by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    It may not be a prerequisite, but the correlation is 1.

  163. Satellite Phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone has a satellite phone, would it be possible to send data with it?

  164. hmmmm by Schmyz · · Score: 1

    didnt our own country just pass an action that allows OUR elected president to do the same thing during times of crisis?

    1. Re:hmmmm by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Hasn't passed yet. Write your congressman!

  165. Internet = Censorable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's fairly safe to say there's growing international battle for Internet control and censorship. Egypt, Wikileaks, numerous countries openly censoring, copyrights, patents, copyrights, defamation, anononymous sources, all kinds of things basically translate into censorship.
     
    I've read TCP/IP was however planned exactly for being unbreakable and uncensorable. Well, what gives? Not enough reduntant links? No decentralized, third-party linkage? Proposals?

  166. Re:Well now all the young urban people will p** of by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Since it's a healthy practice, hopefully never.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  167. Re:Well now all the young urban people will p** of by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    1) Ever heard of satire?
    2) All studies I have seen concluded that it doesn't really matter one way or the other, healthwise. Men with foreskins just need to be consistent in pulling the foreskin back when washing.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  168. We are getting there - Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib by kalinin · · Score: 1

    Granted it is not standard procedure, but your above descriptions cover Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib very well. Soon we might even get an internet kill switch. And just like Egypt we have the specter of religious terrorist strawmen to keep the populace in fear. Lovely.

  169. Smoke! by jemenake · · Score: 1

    From the photos I'm seeing of the protests, it looks like some folks are resorting to smoke signals.

  170. Civil War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one that sees a parallel with what Lincoln had to do with America during the Civil War? Stopped free press, etc., etc.? Any history experts out there?

  171. So is for sex and babies... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    But that doesn't mean that babies have a rich sexual life.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  172. Regarding pop culture and the rest of it... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Well... glad you re-read your post there.

    I do think a free market helps with the self-determination thing.

    Then, I hope that you are a teenager using someone else's ID cause that is a highly faulty notion for a grown up to have.
    I mean... there are many, MANY monks and other people delving with philosophy of "being human", "being at all" etc. who would disagree with that.
    The ability to buy or sell possessions doesn't determine a man more than the ability to eat. And no... they are not equally vital to one's existence either.

    You can't "buy" self. Or bottle it and sell it. Nor would it be possible to be regulated through taxation.
    Or, as I'm about to go on about the pop-culture "You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis."

     
     

    As for pop-culture... I'm actually a great fan of pop-culture - and not just American.
    Thing is... while I am a fan... as I accumulate knowledge and experience over the years I am noticing more and more the gaping holes and triviality in the most of it. Or just plain lies and wrongness.
    Particularly of almost everything that is allowed on TV and theater screens in the USA.
    Well... at least anything aimed at anyone older that 12.

    Meanwhile, adults (starting with teens) are literally indoctrinated into "us vs them", "hunter or prey", "consuming is happiness" and the above mentioned "might makes right".
    Rules are there to be broken and as long as you don't get caught it is A-OK, greed is celebrated continuously, fame is the highest possible thing you can achieve in life, ends justify the means and promiscuity and consumerism are main (if not ONLY) components of freedom and happiness.

    THOSE are the lessons embodied in modern American pop-culture.
    You want actual moral lessons without the taint of consumerism you must dig down to Superhero cartoons.
    You want actual critique of consumerism and "might makes right" - you must dig to Sponge Bob levels.

    Last two adults on American TV shows with actual moral values were Jean-Luc Picard and to some extent Jed Bartlet.
    Today if you go looking for moral guidance on TV your choice of role model lies between a criminal, super-scifi-cop who is never wrong, goofball man-child and someone who's life revolves around fucking.
    Go look up favorite TV show lists at imdb if you don't believe me.
    And that is WITHOUT taking in account all those "reality" shows that are frankly a cultural equivalent of a toxic spill.

    Best America can hope for from all its current cultural export is to turn the rest of the world into Tucker Max clones.
    Which didn't even work for the "original", or so I hear.

     
     
     

    Oh, and "upward class mobility" - another one that is not a prerequisite for democracy.
    In fact, existence of classes opposes democracy as it again introduces the element of economy into what is essentially continuous fight for human freedoms. Whether to maintain them or to win them back.
    If anything it is a necessary evil of an imperfect world - but sadly it is mostly a lie waved in front of the eyes of "lower classes".
    And most certainly you don't get to move up by sticking to moral rules.
    And if you actually (against the odds) do accomplish that quantum leap while holding on to some modicum of moral values - you will most likely find that "those are not the higher classes you were looking for".

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  173. Well, such distinction makes some "western"... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...democracies look really silly as well, and not really all that secular.

    Or democratic, if you find that religious freedoms (including freedom of and from religion) essential to democracy.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Well, such distinction makes some "western"... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I know that many Western states have blasphemy laws on the books. Note that the part of my definition - and a crucial one at that - was "actively enforced". When someone is charged with blasphemy in the West - how often does it happen, anyway; once a few years at most? - it makes front page headlines bemoaning this stupidity.

    2. Re:Well, such distinction makes some "western"... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Oh come on... This is Slashdot.

      If any group should know of dangers of unenforced laws, that's Slashdot.
      Not because we are uniquely predisposed to those laws (well... disregarding some IP laws) but because someone will inform you of those dangers at least once a month. :P

      And while there is a PRACTICAL difference between those countries, MORALLY it boils down to the same thing.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:Well, such distinction makes some "western"... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      We were originally discussion the definition of "Islamic state" and how it pertains to the events of TFA. The discussion regarding unenforced but retained laws is not relevant in that context. As you rightly point out, there is a practical difference - a very huge one! - between having laws but not enforcing them in practice (look at the dates of most recent convictions on that Wikipedia page for Western countries), and not having them at all. Morality is a topic for a different discussion.

  174. How about the rest of that text? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    According to the 1980 amendment of the Constitution, Islamic Law (Sharia) became the principal source of legislative rules.[1] Such wording simply implies that any new law that is being enacted or considered for enactment should not be in contravention of any prevailing principles of Islamic Law (Sharia). Nevertheless, whilst all statutes regulating personal status issues (such as inheritance, marriage, divorce, alimony etc) are derived from Islamic norms, penal law rules as codified in the Penal Code are entirely western non-religious oriented rules. It is argued that the 1980 amendment operates with respect to post 1980 legislations and does not have a retroactive effect. Accordingly, any legal rules, which are inconsistent with general principles of Islamic Law (Sharia), that have been enacted prior to 1980 remain in full force and effect (such as penal law rules), unless abolished or replaced by new laws.

    It is worth noting that Egypt has enacted a number of new statutes to respond to contemporary standards of global economic and business reform including: Investment Law, Anti-Money Laundering Law, Intellectual Property Rights Law, Competition Law, Consumer Protection Law, Electronic Signatures Law, Banking Law, Taxation Law etc.[2]

    And even the worst aspects of such a definition of "Islamic", like blasphemy laws, can't be just generalized into being the same thing all across the board.
    Cause there is a pretty fucking big difference between what you may expect for such "crimes" in say... Egypt and say... Afghanistan.

    Not to mention the level of labeling that implies on the entire culture.
    Should all "Christian" countries be labeled the same way? With crusades, inquisition, modern religious fundamentalists...

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  175. Rules of exclusion... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    You want to judge someone as different, you draw a circle around your own group.
    Then, you find reasons and logic for why those outside of your circle are not like you.
    Lastly, you draw another circle that includes everyone in your circle and everyone who is "close enough".

    Ta-da! You have your own elite based on something that is completely unquantifiable.

    But mostly, you don't even need that much.
    It's not like your aim is to protect someone's rights to be a part of some group - you aim to keep everyone but the people like you from yours.

    So, you go with names first. Culturally relevant names are usually the first criteria.
    Milan and Slobodan is pretty certainly a Serb, while Tomislav and Franjo are pretty certainly Croats and Alija and Samir are pretty certainly Bosniaks.
    But what to do with all those names where you can't really decide? Like Ivan, Igor, Denis etc.
    Well... you look up their last names according to the rule above.
    Cause, while Scots have their Mc- and Irish their O'- in front of the name of their pater familias, most Slavic people have some form of -ich or -icz after the same thing.
    So, you will have your Milanovich Serbs, Tomich Croats and Alijagich Bosniaks.

    Add to that information that Croats are understood (read: generalized) to be Catholic, Serbs are Eastern Orthodox Christians and Bosniaks are Muslims - and you are pretty sure who to exclude from your group.

    The real fun starts when you have mixed marriages and children raised in such marriages.
    And there were plenty of those couple of decades back as it was all one bigger country.
    A bit less now cause.. well.. Ethnic cleansing DOES work. And there are seven countries now where there used to be one.
    Naming rules will still apply in most cases, but at times it gets to be real fun.

    Like an army buddy of mine who was at one time considered unfit for an office job due to being a security risk.
    He had a very Slavic first name (which would probably make him a Serb) and a very Muslim last name. MP captain doing the deciding was a very strict Muslim.
    But, some strings were pulled and he served in an office instead of pulling guard duty. Never did ask him about his religious believes but I suspect that like the rest of us "office rats" he was an atheist.

    And if you think that is funny...
    I mentioned earlier that Bosnia has three presidents, or three members of the presidency to be exact, one from each of its three main ethnic groups.
    "From" being the operative word here. Each of them is elected at the same elections, by all citizens of the country - not just by the votes of their own ethnic group.
    Now, Bosnia is a country where most political parties are formed around representing a certain ethnic group.
    So, when local social democrats (who actually have SOME kind of a political program other than "he is one of us") nominated a Croat as their representative, and he won - Croatian nationalist parties cried out saying that he was not a real Croat, demanding his resignation.
    Also, their reasoning is that he was not chosen by Croats, but by Bosniaks.

    Forget Obama "not being American" - this is akin to if Republicans complained that only blacks voted for him.
    Or to be more correct, should the Republicans nominate a black candidate to face Obama for the next presidential elections, and should the Republican candidate win - someone from black community crying out that he does not represent black people because whites voted for him.

    Come next elections, do those nationalist parties create a coalition and put up their own strong candidate?
    Nope. Each party nominates their own candidate and again they complain along the same points when social democrats win again.

    Granted, Croats ARE a minority among the majorities, and all Croatian nationalist parties together have less members than social democrats so it may seem that social democrats are exploiting a faulty system at the expense of an ethnic minority.
    And that would be true

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Rules of exclusion... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Wow. I knew the situation in Bosnia is still complicated, but I didn't realize just how much of a political mess it remains.

      Out of curiosity - so was the ethnic division less of an issue back when Yugoslavia was a single state? In retrospect, do you think that, perhaps, it would be better if it remained a multi-ethnic federation, with active state promotion of a super-ethnical national identity (Yugoslav first, Serb/Croatian/Bosnian/... afterwards), so long as it didn't remain a socialist dictatorship?

      For my own country (Russia... well, and other ex-Soviet states), I know that quite a few educated people think that there would be much less blood if we just got rid of the commies without tearing the country apart. A lot of this sentiment comes from educated people hailing from republics other than Russia, who bemoan the fact that breaking apart from the single "cultural space" has significantly impoverished their own native cultures.

      It was tried, in fact, but it was already way too late for this - no way after the ethnic conflicts between some Soviet republics in late 80s would the nations stay together in any such formal arrangements.

    2. Re:Rules of exclusion... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Damn... its getting early. XD

      Well, I didn't get to see much of the old-old Yugoslavia as I grew up in the 80s.
      You know... you're a kid in a mixed urban setting. News are the "boring stuff grownups watch" etc.
      So, someone a bit older might have a different outlook on the whole thing. Then again, many from my generation have a different outlook on the breakup of Yugoslavia, war(s) etc.

      I am not really sure what you mean by "active state promotion" (like I said - it is getting early here, dawn is about to break) but Yugoslavia used to be a federation of republics, with internal borders being simply administrative.
      Sure, there were ethnic minorities and majorities in each republic but if anything the notion of "super-ethnical national identity" as you put it was heavily promoted.
      And it wasn't really a socialist dictatorship since Tito died in 1980 as the presidency would rotate from one republic to another. And as far as dictatorships go, his was a pretty benevolent one.
      It was a single-party (communist) system though, until 1990.

      Anyhoow...
      IMHO... It would most definitely have been better had Yugoslavia remained intact. Even should the price have been going the way of Ceausescu's Romania for a decade or more.
      I'm just throwing that in as a comparatively worse form of communist government. Yugoslavia had a very different set of problems.
      First of all, war brought no good to anyone. Well... except the "chosen few".
      Then, it is really silly to imagine that you can simply break up a country like that and just move on - when you've spent last 50 years actively making it a single country.
      Roads still go the same way. So do the people and goods.
      From food to TV it is still the same market - only now a lot more is being wasted on taxes and such, and not to mention that a whole lot of people died or went to "third countries".

      Ironically, it has been only recently that the local law enforcement in the resulting countries has started officially cooperating - while criminals have never stopped.
      To them it is the same market. With the benefit of "spare countries" for hiding and for when they need to get rid of "undesirables".

      Best part is - every single Ex-Yu country (baring Slovenia) is working on and hoping to be accepted into European Union. Slovenia is already in.
      Which will effectively re-create Yugoslavia, only instead of being one bigger political and economical player there will now be six much smaller and far weaker bickering nations under the EU roof.
      No... wait.. I keep forgetting Kosovo. Seven bickering nations. So far.

      So, I am guessing that some 50 years down the road this entire "era" will be considered as "the stupid years" by our grandkids.

      As for Bosnian politics, it gets even more complicated than that.
      Half of the country belongs to a mostly Serb "political entity" called Republika Srpska, the other half is called Federation.
      Each part has its own government, parliament, laws etc. but the administrative center of the entire country is in the Federation part.
      Federation is further divided into 10 cantons with each canton having its own parliament, ministries etc.
      Hijinks ensue every time any single law has to be implemented, as there are 12 different copies of each law.
      So, in one canton you may go into a sports store and simply purchase an air-gun, while in another you would need to do the same amount of paperwork as if you were buying a "real" hunting rifle.

      And don't even get me started on education.
      Elementary schools where kids share the classrooms but study different languages (Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian are all valid languages - and with slight differences it is the same fucking language), different histories and are even taught about different "homelands".
      Meanwhile, we are fucking up the European literacy statistic with ~750.000 illiterate adults.
      About 20% of the GDP (officially) comes from "foreign transfers" - i.e. family members sending money home.
      Real numbers are probably much higher as many simply bring the cash when they come to visit family still living here.
      Oh, and all that with a fixed exchange rate to the Euro.

      Ok.. I'm starting to rant here and I should really go get some sleep.
      Good morning.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  176. What I was saying is... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    That if we make the label "Islamic" based primarily on blasphemy laws, that such a level of generalization would make many western democracies appear almost as bad.

    You know...
    Just as the OP way above generalized that "they are horrendous in one form or another" - saying that "Islamic" means "run by Sharia laws" is basically the same thing.

    You know... taking a word that describes the whole culture and making it about single (and probably the most unfavorable) possible aspect of SOME of the elements of that culture.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:What I was saying is... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That if we make the label "Islamic" based primarily on blasphemy laws, that such a level of generalization would make many western democracies appear almost as bad.

      That's why I was very precise about the wording of my definition, and mentioned active enforcement. If you stick to that, I don't think you'll have any Western democracies on the list.

      You know... taking a word that describes the whole culture and making it about single (and probably the most unfavorable) possible aspect of SOME of the elements of that culture.

      I don't really see a problem with it. In the term "Islamic state", both words are important, while you're just looking at the first one. "Islamic state" means "state with laws and government grounded in Islam". That usually does mean Sharia, or at least cherry-picked parts of it.

      In fact, did you notice that those countries which call themselves "Islamic republics" almost always tend to be "run by Sharia laws"? On the other hand, a Muslim-majority but secular state wouldn't call itself that. I can understand why - personally, I would find the very idea of calling a country, say, "Christian Republic" abhorring. It's tantamount to boldly proclaiming religious intolerance.

    2. Re:What I was saying is... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is a good example against posting tired.

      We diverged into "Islamic state", being pushed by original poster's "Muslim"-to-"Islamic state" ignoratio elenchi substitution, with a dose of "No true Scotsman" as Turkey apparently isn't Islamic but "has Muslim population".

      I don't really see a problem with it. In the term "Islamic state", both words are important, while you're just looking at the first one. "Islamic state" means "state with laws and government grounded in Islam". That usually does mean Sharia, or at least cherry-picked parts of it.

      In fact, did you notice that those countries which call themselves "Islamic republics" almost always tend to be "run by Sharia laws"? On the other hand, a Muslim-majority but secular state wouldn't call itself that. I can understand why - personally, I would find the very idea of calling a country, say, "Christian Republic" abhorring. It's tantamount to boldly proclaiming religious intolerance.

      Try it like this...

      Sharia laws are a set of strict religious laws in Islam.
      State that actively enforces such laws is to be referred as "Islamic state".

      Holy Inquisition is an institution that defends a set of strict religious laws in Christianity.
      State that actively enforces such laws is to be referred as "Christian state".

       
       
      See what I mean?
      Taking a negative aspect of something (X), making that aspect into a representative key-aspect through generalization (X+), associating that to a much larger and more complex set (Y), and then equating that negative aspect we had at the beginning with every other set similar to Y.

      What is wrong with simply calling countries that actively enforce Sharia laws as "Sharia law countries", or even "countries actively enforcing Sharia laws to XY extent"?
      We're gonna save a fortune on toner by using a shorter terminology? Not to mention all that time we'll save.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:What I was saying is... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Holy Inquisition is an institution that defends a set of strict religious laws in Christianity.
      State that actively enforces such laws is to be referred as "Christian state".

      I still don't see an issue here, to be honest. Yes, I think such a state should correctly be referred to as "Christian". It doesn't even need to be that drastic. For example, Spain under Franco, or Portugal under Salazar, or Italy under Mussolini - they could all be reasonably designated "Christian states", in my opinion. US is a borderline Christian state - it definitely has an unhealthy influence of religion on politics, and I am only hesitant because it is mostly informal and outside the law.

      What is wrong with simply calling countries that actively enforce Sharia laws as "Sharia law countries", or even "countries actively enforcing Sharia laws to XY extent"?

      Because that's not the established idiom in English?

      Going back to your example of Turkey, and why it isn't an "Islamic state" - it's for the same reason why, say, France is not a "Christian state" - it's because the state does not provide any preferential treatment to Christianity, even if the majority of citizens may be Christian. Similarly, when we say that such-and-such is a "democratic state", it does not necessarily mean that the majority of citizens are in favor of democracy - but only that the political system of that state is democratic.

    4. Re:What I was saying is... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      I still don't see an issue here, to be honest.

      It demonizes the entire religions and cultures. For the lack of a better word - it's not nice to do that.

      Because that's not the established idiom in English?

      And calling secular democracies Christian IS? Come on...
      Besides, OP obviously can't decide whether he would like to call such states Muslim or Islamic.

      Also, darkies and niggers used to be an "established idiom in English".

      it does not necessarily mean that the majority of citizens are in favor of democracy - but only that the political system of that state is democratic.

      Difference being that just calling a country/state Christian does not translate into a law - unless it actually does have a law that proclaims the state religion, and then you no longer have a democracy as you've just veered off towards theocracy.

      Political system is defined by a law - just like everything else the state does. From shape and color of state flag to the number and length of the roads.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  177. IMHOTEP by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    IMHOTEP...IMHOTEP...IMHOTEP

  178. Not ALL people... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    And if you are running a democratic country and you put such a thing to a vote (as you would need to in a democracy) - you are almost certainly going to be voted/vetoed out.

    Plus, you are mixing economic system with nationalistic ideology, with a mock-religion and a one is a product of a religious belief.
    You could have just as well used blue, car driving, cheese eating and farming. Makes almost as much sense.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Not ALL people... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      And if you are running a democratic country and you put such a thing to a vote (as you would need to in a democracy) - you are almost certainly going to be voted/vetoed out.

      Are you a fucking idiot? You really think that in a country where 99% of people believe something a candidate who supports it (or appears to) is likely to *lose* an election against an opponent who disagrees?

      P.S. Who holds this veto power of which you speak?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."