Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Britney_Hole

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
41
2006 / NUKES _ R _ US
« on: September 17, 2006, 04:44:13 PM »
Chemical & Engineering News
Government Concentrates

caption:DIG Pearce (from left), Richardson, and Domenici break ground for the enrichment facility.

Construction begins on uranium enrichment plant
Ground was broken last week in Eunice, N.M., for construction of the first commercial centrifuge uranium enrichment plant in the U.S. The $1.5 billion facility is owned by Louisiana Energy Services, a consortium of mostly European entities led by Urenco, which supplies about 20% of the world's commercial fuel for nuclear power plants. Attending the ceremony were New Mexico officials, including Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R), Gov. Bill Richardson (D), and Rep. Steve Pearce (R), as well as top Department of Energy officials. Richardson, a former energy secretary, had opposed construction until an agreement was reached in which depleted uranium generated by the plant must be moved out of the state. The facility will begin enriching uranium in 2009 and will be fully operational by 2013, company officials say. It is the first major U.S. nuclear facility to be built in 30 years and the first to receive a combined construction and operating license (C&EN, July 17, page 31).

42
The World Below / Re: Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America
« on: September 17, 2006, 04:41:36 PM »
Thank you for focusing on this very important topic.
I recently came across this snippet in Chemical & Engineering News and I will probably post it separately:

Ground was broken last week in Eunice, N.M., for construction of the first commercial centrifuge uranium enrichment plant in the U.S. The $1.5 billion facility is owned by Louisiana Energy Services, a consortium of mostly European entities led by Urenco, which supplies about 20% of the world's commercial fuel for nuclear power plants. Attending the ceremony were New Mexico officials, including Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R), Gov. Bill Richardson (D), and Rep. Steve Pearce (R), as well as top Department of Energy officials. Richardson, a former energy secretary, had opposed construction until an agreement was reached in which depleted uranium generated by the plant must be moved out of the state. The facility will begin enriching uranium in 2009 and will be fully operational by 2013, company officials say. It is the first major U.S. nuclear facility to be built in 30 years and the first to receive a combined construction and operating license (C&EN, July 17, page 31).

43
General / Re: Liberty Forum is down???
« on: September 17, 2006, 04:08:14 PM »
ha lol

44
General / Re: Latest on LF - Speculation
« on: September 17, 2006, 03:59:11 PM »
Yes as I recall it was several weeks
sorry you were banned I always liked your posts and wondered why I hadn't seen them there....

45
General / Re: Latest on LF - Speculation
« on: September 17, 2006, 03:43:41 PM »
LF went down before about 6 months ago. Went down for weeks then just came back

46
General / Re: Liberty Forum is down???
« on: September 17, 2006, 09:52:52 AM »
fahey
I'm sick of you soft, white, effete, effeminate boys and your 24/7 prattle
get a life, get a job
do not post to me

47
General / Re: Disinformationalist Identification
« on: September 17, 2006, 09:08:35 AM »
hmmm
social engineering is what i call it

48
General / Re: Speakeasy Bitch Whines About Being Banned Here
« on: September 17, 2006, 09:04:10 AM »
I've been cut off from AOL without a cent
no good to ban people though
makes no sense, what kind of free speech is that?

49
General / Re: Latest on LF - Speculation
« on: September 17, 2006, 09:00:04 AM »
Quote
Author of the article:
By BILL REDEKER

http://abcmedianet.com/shows05/news/correspondents/redeker.shtml

I'm guessing he's as jewish as Kushner, he spent 95-98 working in israel..
good catch there
note the RED in the name REDEKER

50
General / Re: Latest on LF - Speculation
« on: September 17, 2006, 08:01:31 AM »
Quote
he will be referred and recommended by my favorite federal attorney in Spokane,
amazing, right into the hands of his handler...

51
General / Re: Latest on LF - Speculation
« on: September 17, 2006, 07:35:52 AM »
Liberty Forum is being set - up by some real trouble makers
I would bet that Prussian Blue and Stormfront.org is a front for another agenda
I can't get into Stormfront, invitation only?
beware....

52
General / Re: Liberty Forum is down???
« on: September 17, 2006, 07:33:43 AM »
TY for the link.
It appears LF is either a victim of mistaken identity or is being "framed" by some real trouble makers
http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2449483&page=2

53
General / Re: Latest on LF - Speculation
« on: September 17, 2006, 06:58:38 AM »
Quote
You have already instituted self-regulation measures that eliminate any "necessity" for legislative regulation.

It doesn't work that way.
Once you admit that there's a problem it is cause for legislation.
He is simply making their case by doing this

54
General / Liberty Forum is down???
« on: September 16, 2006, 08:57:00 AM »
Does anyone know if Liberty Forum is down again?
16Sep06 1:oopm est
Thanks

55
General / Senate Committee Cuts Net Neutrality Amendment
« on: July 02, 2006, 07:52:48 AM »
The Senate Commerce Committee approved on Wednesday an all-encompassing telecommunications reform bill with a bi-partisan vote of 15-7.

The bill, which was initially introduced by Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), has been renamed the Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act. It addresses a wide range of communications-related issues, including municipal broadband services, interoperability funding and video franchise reform.

As it is written, the legislation does not provide an "effective" policy on Internet neutrality, according to several senators, consumer advocate groups, and e-commerce corporations.

"Right now under current law, there's nothing to stop the phone and cable companies from striking a deal to offer high-speed access to a company like Google and refusing to provide any deal at all to a different company like Yahoo," said Jeanine Kenney, senior policy analyst for Consumer's Union. "There's not even a rule on the books that would prevent them from blocking Web sites."

Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) proposed an amendment to the bill to "ensure fair treatment of all Internet content." The amendment incorporated the following non-discriminatory principle: "to promote broadband deployment, and presence and promote the open and interconnected nature of the Internet, a broadband service provider shall not discriminate Internet traffic based on source, ownership, or destination of such traffic as part of any publicly available Internet offering." It was defeated in the Committee with a tie vote of 11-to-11.

"My amendment is not a solution in search of a problem`¦almost every other industrialized nation has enshrined a non-discriminatory philosophy and we should as well to dissuade American innovators from moving abroad," Snowe said. "And there should be no mistake`”as this is the 2nd time that Congress is comprehensively re-writing our nation's communications policy since it was first instituted in 1934, what we do will be transformational with implications that will reverberate for decades."

Though response to the defeat of Snowe's Net neutrality amendment was mixed, it did incur strong reactions from both sides of the political spectrum. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) announced Thursday that he has placed a "hold" on Stevens' legislation until it includes clear rules regarding non-discriminatory Internet access.

"As a United States Senator who has devoted himself to keeping the Internet free from discrimination, from discriminatory taxes, and regulations`¦I cannot stand by and allow the bill to proceed," Wyden said. "Therefore I object to any further action on this telecommunications bill until it includes strong Net neutrality provisions that will truly benefit consumers and small businesses."

However, groups like Netcompetition.org, a forum funded by major players in the broadband industry, disagree with the pro-Net neutrality notion. They maintain that Net neutrality seeks to change the status quo by imposing regulations, and that it protects major e-commerce players like Microsoft, Google, and eBay from competition with the communications industry.

"E-commerce giants want to compete in communications but don't want communications companies to compete with them," said Scott Cleland, chairman of Netcompetition.org. "Net neutrality isn't neutral; it's a form of corporate welfare for dot-com billionaires. Net neutrality would kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and the goose that laid the golden egg is competition."

Netcompetition.org was created as an e-forum to promote competitive choices for consumers through an open discussion and debate of Net-neutrality legislation and regulation, according to its Web site.

"Net neutrality was one of the founding principles of the Internet, and it was in place up until last August," said a spokesperson for Sen. Snowe. "I think it's naïve for people to think you can just take [it] away and everything will be fine. With [Sen. Snowe's] amendment, the offer to maintain Net neutrality was to maintain the status quo of the Internet as we know it."

As media coverage on the topic increases, awareness continues to grow and the general public is also jumping on the Net neutrality bandwagon.

"It's certainly one of the hottest issues in the blogosphere, and once consumers learn about this they immediately understand," Kenney said. "Anything can happen on the floor of the U.S. Senate, so this is far from over. One thing that is a certainty is this will be a major issue on the floor, and if not resolved, certainly has potential to stall the entire vast telecommunications bill."

Consumers Union, a non-profit information organization, says it has begun reaching out to consumers as well, urging them to contact members of Congress to voice their opinions on the issue. The group says it has already seen about 100,000 letters sent to senators on Capitol Hill.


"We consider the vote a procedural tie, but a huge political win," said Adam Green, communications director for MoveOn.org civic action. "It really shows the momentum Net neutrality has gained in the past couple of months as constituents all across the country called on members of Congress to support Net neutrality."

MoveOn.org Civic Action is a non-profit organization geared toward education and advocacy on important national issues.

Editor's Note: Due to an editing error, a previous version of this story erroneously stated that Sen. Stevens' constituency was Alabama, not Alaska.
link http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1983861,00.asp  PC Magazine 06-29-06

56
General / Big Lie of the Week: No. 4
« on: July 02, 2006, 07:50:20 AM »
Big Lie of the Week: No. 4
"The market for Internet connections, unlike that for cable television, is competitive: More than 60 percent of Zip codes in the United States are served by four or more broadband providers that compete to give consumers what they want -- fast access to the full range of Web sites. `¦ If one broadband provider slowed access to fringe bloggers, the blogosphere would rise up in protest -- and the provider would lose customers."

`“ Washington Post editorial, June 12


The Truth: Opponents of Internet freedom `“ like the broadband network owners at the Washington Post -- argue that Network Neutrality is unnecessary because there is enough competition in the broadband market to deter bad behavior.

Put simply, they say that if AT&T or Verizon degraded access to a site or created a discriminatory "fast lane" that consumers didn't like, they would lose customers to competing network operators in the area. For this theory to work, consumers must have robust competition and multiple choices for broadband. Such competition doesn't exist and won't anytime in the foreseeable future.

The Post cites Federal Communications Commission data that "more than 60 percent of Zip codes in the United States are served by four or more broadband providers." But the FCC itself warns that Zip-code information is not meant to be a measure of broadband deployment. The statistic quoted by the Post simply indicates that at least one broadband subscriber resides in a given Zip code, meaning that in 60 percent of the nations' zip codes, there are four broadband providers with at least one customer. The Post is implying that this statistic means that the broadband market is competitive, when in fact it is not.

A recent study by the Government Accountability Office confirms that the Zip-code metric is useless when measuring broadband deployment and competition. The GAO found that the median number of providers available to a given household is just two.

That's right. Most Americans have access to two or less broadband providers. That's all. Cable and DSL systems dominate, holding more than 98 percent of the broadband market. A significant chunk of the country has only one broadband provider available, and around 10 percent of households have none at all.

This is hardly a competitive market. In fact, the share of the market held by all the other broadband technologies combined -- satellite, fixed wireless, mobile wireless, and broadband over power lines -- actually decreased over the past few years, according the FCC.

There simply is not enough competition between different technologies to produce any kind of deterrent to discrimination. Without Network Neutrality, the telephone and cable duopoly will leverage its market power over the network to gain control over the content and application markets, establishing a handful of giant companies as the gatekeepers of the Internet.

If both the local cable and telephone companies are using their networks to discriminate, the consumer is trapped. There is nowhere else to go.

link: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=lie4

57
General / Re: _NUCLEAR NEW JERSEY_
« on: June 01, 2006, 04:11:06 AM »
U.S. is telling Iran not to build nukes. We are building four nukes for little New Jersey and there will be many many more...

58
General / _NUCLEAR NEW JERSEY_
« on: June 01, 2006, 04:09:47 AM »
Newsday.com

Nuclear regulators give nod to Exelon-PSEG merger
May 31, 2006, 3:40 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- Federal nuclear regulators on Wednesday approved a merger between Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. and Exelon Corp., but more hurdles remain before the companies can combine.

The OK from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows Chicago-based Exelon to operate the four nuclear power plants in which Newark-based PSEG has a majority stake. The plants are: Hope Creek and the two Salem plants, all in Lower Alloways Creek, N.J., and Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in Delta, Pa.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the commission's criteria were whether Exelon could run and decommission the plants. The answer was yes, he said, in part because Exelon is already the nation's largest owner of nuclear power plants.

Other regulatory approval is needed before the merger can be completed. The most contentious may be winning approval from the Board of Public Utilities in New Jersey, where PSEG is the biggest utility.

New Jersey's public advocate has said that the deal could hurt the state's consumers and has asked a judge to reject or modify it.

The $16 billion stock deal to create Exelon Electric & Gas already has been approved by PSEG shareholders, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The joined company, to be based in Chicago, would be the largest U.S. electric company, with 7 million electricity and 2 million natural gas customers in Illinois, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.


Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

59
General / Re: Liberty Forum Is Now Censored
« on: May 31, 2006, 04:30:58 AM »
I have been locked out of my AOL account by AOL and can't make another.
I have also been locked out of my yahoo accounts.
Censorship? where?

60
General / _Who Owns the Internet Now?_
« on: May 28, 2006, 10:39:21 AM »
FYI:
I had an AOL account. I guess they didn't like what I was posting on the boards and I have been locked out and can't create a new account.
Incidious censorship is taking place now, make no mistake about it.
BEWARE THE HIDDEN OCCUPATION!!!!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8