Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Quatloosia Publishing LLC -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/
You don't have any form of "net neutrality" over there, do you? That being said, a restriction on the use of broadband by "paper terrorists" (not quite the same as what he calls "free thinkers") sounds like a good idea.aesmith wrote:Member "landlubber" is having trouble with his broadband Internet connection. What's happening to our broadband.
Not as such, not as a stated policy. In practice policies have been contrary to that idea, with the larger ISPs agreeing to block access to some know software piracy sources, and a discussion about whether access to porn sites should be restricted, or made subject to opt in or something. The big news was the Investigatory Powers Act which when in effect will compel ISPs to retain some logging.Arthur Rubin wrote:You don't have any form of "net neutrality" over there, do you?
There goes several hours of some poor guy's day. Not easy to make a living with a small computer store these days, when replacement is often cheaper than repair. He's lost a day of business already, and here comes a doley in a tin-foil hat wanting to discuss theories about how the Rothschilds are interfering with his Facebook access.landlubber wrote:What I am looking for at this moment is a common point between all of those who have lost their internet connectivity, which in all honesty is a formidable task, but I still have some easier checks to make first once my local computer shop opens on Tuesday following the bank holiday...
In my part of the world we just call that a special kind of stupid and try and maintain a good safe non-contact distance, there is some observational evidence that it is also contagious. Kind of like my great aunt who would never unplug anything for fear the electricity would get out.aesmith wrote:I don't know how you'd classify Landlubber's attitude. He has a broadband fault and thinks he's an expert, so does he (1) call his service provider to report it, or does he (2) log into his router or modem and look at the statistics and logs to see if that sheds any light one what's causing it, before calling his ISP. Or does he (3) google the Internet to see if there's a large scale conspiracy? Yet he genuinely seems to think that he has some expertise and is using that to get to the bottom of his issue. Note as an expert he explains to Ceylon that Skype uses the Internet. He knows that FTTC uses fibre to the street cabinet, but manifestly fails to understand why it's done that way, so refuses to take up such a service on principle.
Is this all simple refusal to do anything in the normal way, just for it's own sake?
assassin wrote:Once your telephone connects to the exchange it is transmitted through the exchange to a transmitter on the roof and to a satellite, from the satellite to the receiving exchange as a minimum and this gives two radio transmissions to intercept, the uplink from the exchange to the satellite, and the downlink from the satellite to the receiving exchange.
That was sort of, nearly, almost, more or less true once with international calls but sub-sea fibre-optic cables replaced them donkey's years ago. Domestic calls might go via microwave link but even this is old hat now. Fibre-optical cable has massively more bandwidth than microwave and it's several light-years ahead of satellite.aesmith wrote:Some descriptions of the telephone network are pure fairy tale ...assassin wrote:Once your telephone connects to the exchange it is transmitted through the exchange to a transmitter on the roof and to a satellite, from the satellite to the receiving exchange as a minimum and this gives two radio transmissions to intercept, the uplink from the exchange to the satellite, and the downlink from the satellite to the receiving exchange.
Anyone have a clue what the aptly named Waffle is on about?Stop using Statutes and Common Law
Post by Waffle Yesterday at 10:19 pm
A legal interest is a right in property governed by statute and common law. An equitable (beneficial) interest is a right in property governed by the law of equity.
Post by bimmer Today at 8:32 am
Got a link to that?
Post by Waffle Today at 9:21 am
Unfortunately not. Last time I published my work from there they shut down the manuals I was wirking from for months. Coincidence or isolated block I don't know but it's set me back months, I don't want to risk it, hence the edit above. Go in their manuals and look around for yourself There's lots to discover.
We should be thinking about moving away from legal land and sought the law we need to protect ourselves. It's not going to come easy, but when we understand everything is property and land law and we're using common law as a defence we now know we are in the wrong world!
I think Waffle was 'wirking' on a document about something or other but rather than using a word processing programme on a computer like normal people he was doing it online and then something happened and because of that something else happened and he lost his work.aesmith wrote:Anyone have a clue what the aptly named Waffle is on about?Stop using Statutes and Common Law
Post by Waffle Yesterday at 10:19 pm
A legal interest is a right in property governed by statute and common law. An equitable (beneficial) interest is a right in property governed by the law of equity.
Post by bimmer Today at 8:32 am
Got a link to that?
Post by Waffle Today at 9:21 am
Unfortunately not. Last time I published my work from there they shut down the manuals I was wirking from for months. Coincidence or isolated block I don't know but it's set me back months, I don't want to risk it, hence the edit above. Go in their manuals and look around for yourself There's lots to discover.
We should be thinking about moving away from legal land and sought the law we need to protect ourselves. It's not going to come easy, but when we understand everything is property and land law and we're using common law as a defence we now know we are in the wrong world!
170 words, none of which relate one to one the other in any coherent fashion.aesmith wrote:Anyone have a clue what the aptly named Waffle is on about?Stop using Statutes and Common Law
Post by Waffle Yesterday at 10:19 pm
A legal interest is a right in property governed by statute and common law. An equitable (beneficial) interest is a right in property governed by the law of equity.
Post by bimmer Today at 8:32 am
Got a link to that?
Post by Waffle Today at 9:21 am
Unfortunately not. Last time I published my work from there they shut down the manuals I was wirking from for months. Coincidence or isolated block I don't know but it's set me back months, I don't want to risk it, hence the edit above. Go in their manuals and look around for yourself There's lots to discover.
We should be thinking about moving away from legal land and sought the law we need to protect ourselves. It's not going to come easy, but when we understand everything is property and land law and we're using common law as a defence we now know we are in the wrong world!
notorial dissent wrote:
170 words, none of which relate one to one the other in any coherent fashion.
So what were they going to do, why try another constitutionally solid theory, of course. Since obviously learning from past fails is NOT an option. mufc1959 wrote:It looks as if the new owners of GOODF have finally closed down the forum.
https://getoutofdebtfree.org/
I clicked on my menubar icon, which usually has me logged in and takes me to unread posts in the forum. But instead I had to log in again and got taken to the home page. I can't find the forum anywhere.
