6 Nov
2013
6 Nov
'13
3:22 a.m.
Following up, re. Steve, Eddan, Hol, and other re-purposing of the logo:
Re. Steve:
An hour to re-tune a transmitter. Yow. But in those days the Soviet
bombers would have taken approx. 6 hours to reach the US, so I would
suppose that some stations cut over to 640 or 1240 more quickly and
others stayed off-air until they re-tuned. After ICBMs, the attack time
could be as little as 30 minutes, which I suppose is what must have led
to the change to EBS. From your Wikipedia link I found out that the
ominous "alert tone" was 960 Hz; I'd guessed it was 1 KHz; close enough
"by ear."
"Scam to sell replacement transmitter tubes," nah, probably an
un-intended consequence: nobody would have wanted transmitters breaking
down as a nuclear war was starting.
"Voters... too late..." Maybe; depends on the tactics used to get their
attention;-)
--
Re. Eddan:
Makes sense that you'd know Marvin Ammori. VERY interesting that his
op-ed piece could be actually speaking to the clerks of the court. As
in, "don't make the kind of mistake like the one in that railroad case
that turned corporations into persons"?, or something else?
Re. the libertarians not supporting it: are you pointing to a
distinction between left-libertarians and right-libertarians, or
something else?
Re. anti-discrimination: ooh, that's good! Really really good.
Suggests that it could be framed as a _racial_ discrimination issue due
to the correlation between economics and race. "Discriminatory effect"
doctrine might apply there, which, when combined with opposition to an
"affirmative action" type workaround, produces the result of demanding a
level playing field, thus net neutrality.
There's a potential _religious_ discrimination issue here too: per my
item about radio spectrum colonized by a narrow slice of religious
denominations, excluding all others, whereby internet broadcasting is a
"partial remedy." Shutting down internet radio and podcasting,
effectively takes _minority religious broadcasters_ off the air
altogether.
Even though the Bay Area progressive community is largely non-religious
in any conventional sense, there are strong religious progressive
traditions in many denominations in the US, for example the Catholic
Worker, various Quaker-affiliated groups, etc. If these groups have
counted on their web sites, podcasts, internet broadcast, etc., they are
a natural constituency.
Re. traffic prioritization for hyperlocal: Interesting point. I'd be
satisfied with a truly level playing field and no Spynet ("tracking").
What I really want is to go back to status quo ante, with a firewall of
entity separation between carriers and content. Carriers that have a
stake in content are if anything worse than the old Bell monopoly, which
at least was content-neutral and level.
--
Re. Hol:
Great find you found there.
Your link is to one of the earlier renditions of the Civil Defense
logos, I would guess early to mid 1950s. That was a scan of an original
printed publication.
By the late 50s, the red "CD" lettering was much larger, touching the
boundaries of the triangle; and the lines in the CD letters were
slightly thinner.
BTW, the logo was ubiquitous on public service vehicles in that era,
including fire engines, public works vehicles, Post Office vehicles,
etc., anything that could be used in disaster recovery. Anyone who was
alive in that era would immediately recognize a modern re-purposing of
the logo.
--
And back to Steve:
The "messenger" logo works for things like community wireless. For
underground radio I think the CONELRAD logo from the Wikipedia page is
more directly to the point.
--
That page of logos Hol found has all kinds of potential:
Look at the upper right corner of the page, the "Civil Air Patrol"
logo. Grass-roots "drones" or "anti-drone drones" or whatever you
want
to call them? And/or use the "Air Raid Warden" logo for anti-drone
efforts.
Also look in the left column toward the bottom, the logo with the pliers
in it for "utility repair." Possible hackers/makers alliance logo?
And, create new ones, with various things in the white triangle to
symbolize elements of the community including coders (a field of 1s and
0s?), crypto (three five-digit groups, a traditional symbol for
ciphertext), biohackers (that one's easy: a DNA helix in red), attorneys
(oldschool scale representing equal justice), etc. The "emergency food
and housing" logo could be re-purposed to "community home-brewing" with
the symbol of a beer mug instead of a coffee cup. More ideas eagerly
welcome....
The common denominator is the idea that community-based "stuff" will not
be shut down, no matter what, even if it takes peaceful civil
disobedience to protect it. That's a way of standing up and showing
strength in numbers. "Civil Disobedience IS Civil Defense!"
-G.
=====
On 13-11-05-Tue 3:56 PM, Steve Berl wrote:
Like the image. The messenger one seems appropriate.
Steve
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013, Hol Gaskill wrote:
I like the cut of your jib, steve. we can make our own set of
roles and insignia:
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_08_2011/post-1726-13124874…
on Nov 05, 2013, *Steve Berl* <steveberl(a)gmail.com
<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'steveberl(a)gmail.com');>> wrote:
Re. CONELRAD:
Interesting stuff. A bit more digging and I did find reference
to the low power mode, and stations near the designated
frequencies needing to retune their transmitters. One article
said that it took the engineer of one station up to an hour to
retune to the new frequency. Hope those bombers were flying
pretty slow. The round robin thing is also referenced in
several articles and how turning the transmitters on and off,
as well as transmitting off frequency (which I guess causes a
high VSWR).
Sounds like a scam to sell lots of replacement power tubes for
transmitters.
I like the idea of "Civil Disobedience IS Civil Defense!" and
adopting the symbol..
As for getting this to be an electoral issue, I have my doubts
that you can get a significant number of voters interested
enough to care, until it is too late.
-steve
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:48 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne
<g2g-public01(a)att.net> wrote:
Re. Steve:
The nightmare scenario for "after the end of net
neutrality" is that the Bigs adopt _time-based_ or
_QOS-based_ control of any content that isn't paying
through the nose.
For example a typical small biz website's main page is
about 2 meg. Under the new regime they find it takes 60
seconds to load (long enough to chase away customers), so
they redo the site and now it's only 200K. But the 200K
version of the page still takes 60 seconds to load. And
if they slimmed it down to 20K it would still take 60
seconds to load.
Even easier, just assign the lowest QOS priorities to
"commoner" traffic, so it's totally unreliable. Think
call-drops in bad cell coverage areas, translated to the
entirety of the internet over both wired and wireless
media, so it becomes totally but randomly useless. The
reason you hear people say they "don't like to talk on the
phone" is because "the phone" has become crappy audio and
unreliable connections compared to what it used to be.
Translate that to the whole internet with the exception of
the "preferred channels," Google, Facebook, Twitter,
Amazon, and of course Fox News. "I don't go online any
more except to buy stuff...." Right, exactly.
Either of the above would shut down internet broadcasting,
and also shut down small business websites, for which
reason Main Street USA ought to be up in arms about it,
pitchforks & torches included.
If either of those censorship-by-"nudge" things happens, a
huge explosion of pirate radio would not be unexpected,
including deliberately stepping on big stations' signals
to make the point. For that matter, revenge-jamming of
the entire AM & FM broadcast bands by "outlaws" is a
foreseeable consequence. Think of people running around
dropping off disposable jamming transmitters all over a
city, that kind of thing. Argh...
What I'm thinking is:
Make this THE issue of the 2014 Congressional elections.
"The biggest free speech issue of the 21st century."
Every candidate gets grilled on it: where do you stand on
net neutrality? Anyone who isn't with us gets dragged
through a nasty primary battle. And if they lie about
supporting it, and get into office and do nothing or
worse, then they get primaried in 2016, which will be a
high-turnout year.
And of course, back up the electoral strategy with a
barrage of lawsuits covering every possible angle, and
with peaceful civil disobedience designed to generate more
trials where these issues can be brought up again and
again and again.
Re. CONELRAD:
I've read plenty of Civil Defense material from the Cold
War era and it described the low-power broadcast
scenario. That Wikipedia article is the first I've heard
of anything like round-robin, and it would be difficult to
manage a round-robin system in the middle of a nuclear
attack.
But either scenario might be adaptable to "modern
conditions." "Civil Disobedience IS Civil Defense!" Heh,
may as well adopt the CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org');>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
--
-steve
