Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Syrians Using Donkeys Instead of DSL After Gov't Shuts Down Internet

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the any-way-you-can dept.

The Internet 207

abhatt writes "Rebelling Syrians are using all possible alternate methods to pass information to the world amidst a total blackout on the internet by the Government. Believe it or not, Donkeys are a part of the revolution now. From the article: 'To get the news out, activists have been smuggling videos to Jordan through the desert and across a nearly 80-kilometer border Jordan shares with Syria. Some risk approaching the border with Jordanian cellphones to report to the outside world and send clips. It's a dangerous task because the Syrian and Jordanian armies traditionally have the area under heavy surveillance to prevent the smuggling of drugs and weapons into the kingdom or further to the Gulf states.'"

cancel ×

207 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I have only one question (3, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134676)

When does the invasion start? Has the UN already drawn up the paperwork?

Okay.. two questions.. Sue me..

Re:I have only one question (2)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134708)

Hey, Operation Make Lazy Westerners Think That Pushing A Few Bits Is Contributing To Freedom comes first.

Your Twitter account needs you!

Re:I have only one question (4, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134778)

When does the invasion start? Has the UN already drawn up the paperwork?

Never. Somehow, the politicians of the world have somehow convinced the public that it's A-OK to bomb Libyan troops and hardware for attacking civilians, but it's totally NOT OK to bomb the Syrian troops and hardware, even though they are doing exactly the same things as Libyan troops.

And all the while, the world public opinion is completely fine with North Korean regime's massive torture and murder in concentration camps, of their own civilian population [singularityhub.com] .

"Double standards" doesn't even begin to describe the hypocrisy. We do live in a hugely fucked up world.

Re:I have only one question (4, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134814)

And all the while, the world public opinion is completely fine with North Korean regime's massive torture and murder in concentration camps, of their own civilian population [singularityhub.com] .

World opinion isn't completely fine with it, however world opinion recognises that using force to free the prisoners will probably result in a vastly greater loss of innocent life than pursuing a course of brinkmanship and slow embargoes with NK.

Re:I have only one question (4, Insightful)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134824)

And if the UN attacks North Korea, the batshit insane leader will start lobbing nukes.

Unfortunately the world is a little more complex than you'd make out. Yes, leaders of both places are evil. The consequences for attacking one can be vastly different than that for another. It sucks, but that's reality.

Re:I have only one question (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135852)

lucky america isn't bat shit insane enough to go start nukeing a country when they get desprete.

Re:I have only one question (5, Insightful)

he-sk (103163) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134874)

Welcome to the world of politics. The West intervened in Libya because Gaddafi somehow [1] managed to alienate everybody (who counts) in the world. He had no friends left. OTOH, Syria is allied with Iran. And while China isn't exactly a friend of North Korea, they'd still object to Western intervention so close to home (as they did 60 years ago).

It has nothing to do with double standards or hypocrisy. It's all about choosing the battles you can win and avoiding those you'll lose, so you can fight another time.

[1] Which was quite a feat, if you think about it.

Re:I have only one question (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134980)

It's all about choosing the battles you can win

Please explain Afghanistan...

Re:I have only one question (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135022)

Poppies...poppieeees... sleep.. sleeeeep

Re:I have only one question (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135128)

Dubya thought Afghanistan would be easy.

Re:I have only one question (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135544)

When the US invaded we could have won. However, Bush wasn't willing to expend the resources and troops necessary to make it happen instead siphoning them off for that stupid crusade in Iraq. The US was winning until the government took its eye off the ball and allowed the insurgents to regain their footing.

You don't win wars based upon strategy, you win them on logistics, and here in the US we pretty much gave it away by stretching ourselves too thing based purely upon arrogance.

Re:I have only one question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135916)

Same thing happened to the nazis.

Re:I have only one question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135562)

Do you remember the political atmosphere after September 11th? That, in a nutshell, is why the Afghanistan war started. It was as much a spasm of anger as a well thought out intervention. Sure, maybe Afghanistan is unwinnable. But in many ways the US didn't choose it as a battleground, it was pulled into it in a dramatic fashion not seen since Pearl Harbor. It was politically untenable for the US government not to invade Afghanistan after September 11th.

A better example for your case would probably be Iraq, since it wasn't done as a knee jerk reaction to a national tragedy and should have been thought out better because of that. America had the option of not doing that one. Except Iraq was winnable, just it ended up being an imperfect victory at tremendous cost.

Re:I have only one question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135996)

You forgot [2] Oil .

Which was really [1] as far as the West was concerned.

Re:I have only one question (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135006)

It became ok to bomb Libya when a replacement was found that would honor all the weapons contracts.. And the cost/benefit ratio doesn't yet justify invading Korea.. It's not about hypocrisy.. It's about the money.. I do see a strategic/economic interest in Syria though for keeping Iraq (and thus Iran) under control, and basically destabilizing the region for the benefit of our real 'friend'.. and opening up the land route to Europe for Afghanistan's heroin (See Iran/contra for a related scenario) The opium wars never ended..

Re:I have only one question (3, Informative)

andydread (758754) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135052)

Not exactly the same thing. The Syrian army just started using tanks THIS WEEK. They have not razed entire cities to the ground with rocket trucks and Jet aircraft like Colonel Qaddafi has done There is no call from the Syrian people for a NO-FLY-ZONE because they are not getting bombed to oblivion like Qaddafi was doing to his people. So no its not the same thing not even close.

Also there is not infinite resourses to go after every dictator that turns small arms and light armor at their people. I don't see North Koreans calling for a NO-FLY-ZONE over N-Korea. Nor are they threating to raze entire cities to the ground.

The dynamics of each and every situation in each country are totally different. There is not a one size fit all approach that will work for every single situation.

Re:I have only one question (1)

Shienarier (185368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135054)

There is also the question of resources. Doesn't even seem to be enough NATO planes to stop Gaddafi, and you want them to take on North Korea?

No, people aren't "fine" with any of that.
We just live in the real world.

Re:I have only one question (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135540)

Doesn't even seem to be enough NATO planes to stop Gaddafi

It baffles me that the Western Powers would think that "a little bit" of intervention would work. What's the end game for this scenario?

Or is this another one that's intended to last forever?

Re:I have only one question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135236)

The UN and the world doesn't work on idealism.

Even though many people want Syria to stop and think that bombing them would achieve that, its simply not feasible to do it. Every situation and every country are different, and the repercussions of doing the same thing would be different.

For example, bombing the DPRK would in all likelihood result in them bombing Seoul back and killing tens of thousands of people; hence the international community can't do it. Bombing Syria would require the use of either Israeli bases (which would be completely unacceptable to everyone in the middle east - probably even many of the rebels' supporters) or Turkish ones, which they would almost certainly not let NATO do to carry out offensive operations. Also, that would kill any negotiations with Iran on all matters for a very long time, a sacrifice which even if it is worth making is a consideration.

To use military force several criteria are needed:
1) For it to help people
2) For it to be possible to carry out the operation
3) To have good reasons to believe it will work

The first criteria might apply in North Korea and Syria; but thats not enough. In Libya people believed that all 3 criteria were held. If you can make a valid well reasoned argument that the other two are held as well, then by all means do and I, for one, will listen.

Call it double standards if you want; the fact is its pragmatism.

Re:I have only one question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135454)

There is no double standard. The answer is *so* simple. But most people live in a fantasy world where "altruism" is the ideal. A fantasy world someone told them, to feed off of them.
Because in reality, every life in all of the universe either gets as much growth as possible (normally through getting more resources and more efficient) and therefore uses other life for that goal,⦠or gets used for the growth of someone else. (The latter includes everyone who now goes "No, what you say is wrong. Altruism is good!" and doesn't say it to get others to work for him.)

So the world generally doesn't give a fuck about others. Unless they offer some useful resource. Like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

It's. as. fuckin. simple. as. that.

Re:I have only one question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135764)

Yeah cause guantanamo bay is like a holiday resort.

Re:I have only one question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135174)

Donkeys are a good lay. Try it some time. It's not like you can get a girl.

Re:I have only one question (1)

II Xion II (1420223) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135526)

I see a lot of this type of thinking and while it is certainly genuine to question why we intervened in Libya and not in Syria, Bahrain, etc. it still must be put into perspective.

1.) Given the recent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt that overthrew their local dictators largely through peaceful protest, when Libya started cracking down extremely hard against their part in the Arab Spring, there was a massive outcry both internally and externally. Many Libyan units were seemingly defecting, protests were all over the country, officers had refused to attack citizens, and major figures defected. Despite this though, Gaddafi and his sons kept up the delusional rhetoric and spoke of massacres as they responded with pure military force. The Arab League, human rights organizations, and other countries were ratcheting up calls for a NFZ and finally at the last possible second (well after when it would have been most effective) that was implemented by the United Nations with BRIC and Germany abstaining but no vetoes by the Security Council. This stopped a very significant advance by Gaddafi on Benghazi after Ajdabiya had fell. The unique circumstances of the Arab Spring, the brutal crackdown in Libya, and a lot of support for protecting Libyans from the Gaddafi regime from all over the world led to the Western intervention in Libya by U.N. mandate. Does Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, etc. have all those conditions at play to even approach that level? Surely they have brutal regimes that have cracked down, but the mass defections are not present (some exceptions in Yemen) nor are the peaceful prior outcomes of Egypt and Tunisia (now that civil war in Libya has interrupted such positions won't likely be taken again).

2.) Be skeptical all you like, I firmly believe this was a humanitarian-driven intervention. The United States was dead-set against intervention til the last possible minute and even now has taken a back seat in the conflict. The West had wonderful relations with Libya after 2003 or so when Libya opened themselves to Western business and made nice political allies in Western Europe. Sacrificing all that stability and business for oil we already had access to makes no sense except to conspiracy theorists and extreme cynics. Intervention was driven by international unanimity for the most part with the usual regimes backing away from outright support (Russia and China for obvious reasons given their suppression of free speech as well as many Arab nations that didn't support it publicly due to Western interventionism PR and their own monarchical regimes). So the question is, is humanitarian intervention militarily a solution? Does it cause more harm than good? All debatable. We don't know what would have happened had Gaddafi crushed Cyraenica compared to the bloodshed now. Libya would have been more stable, but is a brutal regime of stability better than a possibility of a fresh start? Tough to say, especially with tribal-driven loyalties in Libya. I don't believe that all these rebels are Al Qaeda though as some may claim, many are former professionals, educated Libyans, and come from diverse backgrounds all to stand against the fascist and brutal regime of Gaddafi who massacred many en masse and now they have taken up arms against him and his rule. I feel it's a noble cause. Is it that simple though? No. Is it for the best? Who knows. Only time will tell.

We cannot intervene everywhere for humanitarian purposes for matter of expediency, pragmatism, temporal factors, global support, etc. But when there is so much call for help and support for it, then I feel internationally we should and have an obligation to whether it be in Ivory Coast (like we did), Rwanda, or Burma. I don't support the "white man's burden" argument, but I do support intervention when there is clear near unanimous support for intervention, a multi-national and cross-cultural military team, and a very clear threat to many lives and livelihoods like with genocides (in addition to internal support for that cause). And I think Libya is a very good example of what happened despite pussyfooting by some Arab nations who initially strongly supported intervention.

The facts are so much more complex than these simple quips some of you like to spout out. But quips that appeal to the emotional basis of some clearly delineated sociological mindset are what get people modded Insightful it seems, not a logical analysis of a very complex and multifaceted situation.

Re:I have only one question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135812)

I know, it would be so awesome if US could invade all the countries simultaneously. But alas we can only do so much. Maybe the Syrians form a rebel government and ask Israel to help them. Man that would be trolling.

OK... (4, Funny)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134702)

What ass thought up that idea? C'mon. Don't be stubborn, just tell us.

Re:OK... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36134914)

.... and the bigger question is, if it's a task fraught with so much danger, why publicize the fact so that the syrian army knows it should be on the look out for donkeys near the border?

Better than bongo drums (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134734)

But higher latency. Must not be that great to play Counter Strike over donkey-net.

Re:Better than bongo drums (2)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135464)

I believe it was in the UK that they determined that Pigeons had better bandwidth than some rural internet connections.

Re:Better than bongo drums (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135510)

Well a donkey has far better bandwidth over that 80 km trip than most any internet connection you can get (in most places). Look at the amount of weight a donkey can carry, then figure out what that weight is in some media (hard drives, SD cards, optical, whatever) and how long it takes them to do the 80 km trip. High latency yes, but insane amounts of bandwidth. I guess if a donkey gets shot on the way you have a "dropped packet" and need to retransmit. If he gets lost it was because there was "no route to host" or a loop in the routing protocol (I think they call it DHGP - Donkey Herder Gateway Protocol).

Re:Better than bongo drums (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135584)

You know, donkeynet used to be something completely different...

Re:Better than bongo drums (2)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135950)

Yes, I know.

It was called eDonkey, and I still use it's descendant, eMule (although I'm sure someone would be fast to point out that it primarily uses the Kademlia Distributed Hash Table rather than the original eDonkey network)

The Digital Donkey (2)

greylion3 (555507) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134748)

When I read the headline, this old story came to mind:
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Best_of_2006_0x3a__The_Virtudyne_Saga.aspx [thedailywtf.com]

I was actually a bit disappointed to find that the donkeys were just for smuggling videos :/

Re:The Digital Donkey (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135044)

I was actually a bit disappointed to find that the donkeys were just for smuggling videos :/

Yeah what they should do is get a hundred or so of them, then shave some of them to represent 0, leave unshaved ones to represent 1, and have someone with binoculars on the other side of the border transpose the data from donkeybinary to computer binary.

IP over donkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36134750)

IP over carrier pigeon is so 1980s, IP over donkey is the future!

Re:IP over donkey (5, Funny)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134784)

This is the broadband version of IP over Avian Carrier, given the much higher payload capacity of a donkey.

Re:IP over donkey (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134846)

Yes, but is the broadband RFC2549 compliant as well as 1149?

(sorry, yeah, I know that 2549 is stupid compared to the novelty of the original. Someone probably just thought "weighted" fair queuing by weighting the bird would be funny. It wasn't really...)

Re:IP over donkey (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135074)

Heh, be very grateful that donkeys don't fly...

Re:IP over donkey (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135100)

This is the broadband version of IP over Avian Carrier, given the much higher payload capacity of a donkey.

Yeah, but the latency is even worse!

Re:IP over donkey (1)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135642)

And why not birds you ask? The answer is obvious: IPV6 jumbo packets are too heavy to be carried by air.

Re:IP over donkey (3, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134900)

And I thought my ISP was a real jack ass.

The internet (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134752)

I have to wonder how much of the source of all these protest is the internet. I don't mean twitter or facebook or any of those, but the ability of people in the Middle East to see the western quality of life and freedom for themselves, talk one to one with western people, look around themselves and realise...
 
...man, this is crap. Where is my freedom? Why am I wading knee-deep in camel dung while the high priests are living it up? Where's my decent education, where's my non corrupt police force, why do I have to bribe someone just to file some paperwork?

Re:The internet (1)

TheRealWheatley (2049120) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134768)

i think it's possible the syrian government agrees with you

Re:The internet (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134872)

i think it's possible the syrian government agrees with you

i think it's possible the Syrian people agree with you

FTFY

Re:The internet (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134810)

Freedom of speech is overrated. Why do you think that Westerners have a monopoly on knowing that powerful people are generally both corrupt and living a life of comparative luxury? It's not as if the side of my family living under dictatorship could not see the nice cars and the big palace that the leaders drove into and out of every day.

Also, Western quality of life - Anglo-Saxon in particular - is overrated. We have a negligible sense of family, community and loyalty. But the grass is always greener on the other side, so I have no doubt that effective external propaganda helps tip the balance. Recall, of course, the oft-repeated quality of revolutions that you only need about one third in favour and another third apathetic: the fall of the USSR, for example, followed not soon after a referendum in which only around a quarter wanted to see the end of the Union.

Re:The internet (0)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134862)

We have a negligible sense of family, community and loyalty. But the grass is always greener on the other side, so I have no doubt that effective external propaganda helps tip the balance.

How is wanting paved roads, working streetlights, decent healthcare, indoor plumbing, the right to determine your own future and some semblance of a future for your children propaganda? What I'm talking about is ordinary Middle Easterners communicating with ordinary Westerners, realising that these guys are nothing special, then wondering why they can't have the same, a process as natural as the tide. The answer is simple of course; they can. I'm quite happy to see at long last the correct answer being given to the questions of starvation and poverty - remove the damn dictators.

Re:The internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36134910)

...paved roads, working streetlights, decent healthcare, indoor plumbing...

Lord, that's why everyone around the world thinks the average American is dumb. Get yourself on a plane and go see the places you're talking about. Tripoli is way better than the average redneck trailer park where you live. People have working streelights, paved roads, or wherever you think it's exclusive to the Western world.

Fucking moron.

Re:The internet (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134938)

The average poor/middle class person in Libya is and was massively worse off than the average poor person in the west, and there's a lot more to Libya than its capital.

You're welcome.

Re:The internet (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135000)

Yeah that's cute. I live in the "Jungle" in Costa Rica. Really, at the local Hooters they wear grass skirts. And considering that it's across the road from the Outback (steakhouse), you can imagine just what kind of jungle this really is... sorry, have to go, the delivery guy is here with my Indian food.

Re:The internet (1, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135144)

paved roads, working streetlights, decent healthcare, indoor plumbing, the right to determine your own future and some semblance of a future for your children

When you list all these things, to which proportion of which country do you refer?

Re:The internet (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134918)

But the grass is always greener on the other side,

But it's not. Americans almost universally believe the USA to be the best country on the planet. Where do Americans want to move to? Because, I'd hazard a guess that the percent of Americans living in some place nearly equal, like the UK as permanent residents, vs the percent of UK people living in the US as permanent residents is different by an order of magnitude or more.

I don't think there are good numbers on that, but people just don't leave the US. Why? Well, it would seem that Americans don't see the grass as greener elsewhere. And, from what I've seen from the actual statistics, American might be seen and perceived as the land of opportunity, but the actual percentage of people who pull themselves up by their own bootstraps to make a success of themselves is greater outside the US in those evil socialist countries than in the US. I guess people are sold on the ideal, and not the reality such that it blocks the idea that the grass could be greener.

Re:The internet (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135070)

Well, yes they do [mapsofworld.com] , though net migration is inward, as in many richer nations.

But the US advertises itself to the whole world as the "other side", while no-one really advertises the same to the US. The US is the place to go if you're poor enough to make a good wage slave or clever enough to make a killing, with a visa lottery system to scoop up the former (you won't find e.g. a British citizen allowed to enter on the lottery scheme).

Re:The internet (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135134)

Bootleg satellite dishes destroyed the Soviets' control over information. Access to western media played a great part in its downfall.. Ted Turner's STV, starting with the Goodwill Games in '86 had a much bigger effect than Ronnie's SDI..

Re:The internet (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135178)

The Soviet people didn't want the end of the Union. Its downfall was orchestrated from the top: Who reallocated to defence? Who gradually dismantled the command economy? Who implemented Glasnost and Perestroika?

"Popular revolutions" exist, but the one ending the USSR was absolutely not one of them. What effect do you think Western media did to influence what actually happened in the USSR, and how?

Re:The internet (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135344)

"You forgot Poland"

Unlike China's Tienanmen Square deal, the Soviets could not contain the info coming out about the strikes and subsequent negotiations. You underestimate the power of propaganda.. Control of the media is paramount. You only have to note what's happening now as all opposition to American policy is being tagged as a bunch of kooks and 'conspiracy theorists'.. the best alternative to outright censorship, which turns out to actually be more effective, while providing the illusion of 'freedom of press'. A big win for authoritarians everywhere. Also note the the replacements in Tunisia and Egypt are hardly any better than the previous regimes. "Arab Spring" is a propaganda masterpiece.

Actually I agree that it's always been top down. A real 'peoples' movement would be crushed like an ant, or compromised by infiltration.. but public relations is very important

Re:The internet (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135554)

the Soviets could not contain the info coming out about the strikes and subsequent negotiations.

This was certainly relevant in some satellite states, no class therein content to be a servant of the USSR, but not to the USSR itself. What was happening in Eastern Europe might have influenced Soviet thinking, but those who mattered wouldn't have had the goings on there hidden from them anyway.

The West have this habit of looking back at the strength of Solidarity or the fall of the Berlin Wall and thinking events in Eastern Europe were the harbinger of the USSR's inevitable destruction. It's a quaint, prejudiced image of slaves flooding out to freedom, sending the good news back East. But these events were all symptoms, not causes, and the final death blows were yet to come.

the best alternative to outright censorship, which turns out to actually be more effective, while providing the illusion of 'freedom of press'.

Absolutely. America's learnt that, once you have the infrastructure, it's much better to drown speech out than to censor it.

Also note the the replacements in Tunisia and Egypt are hardly any better than the previous regimes. "Arab Spring" is a propaganda masterpiece.

Egypt right now is precisely a country with a suspended constitution under military dictatorship. Ostensibly preparing for a Free And Fair[tm] election, as always. A few of the moderate and figurehead officials awaiting show trial; a few of the less sane opposition party reps back in the wild and ready to enjoy pluralism. Good luck, Egypt, at the rate every neighbouring country in your situation has done...

Re:The internet (3, Interesting)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134848)

More than Internet revolutions, all these revolutions are Al Jazeera revolutions.

Just good old fashioned journalism now available (much more so than internet connectivity) in the region.

Or so I've heard.

Re:The internet (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135304)

Was Al Jazeera previously forbidden in the Middle East? My own experience in developing countries is that internet cafes have a much higher rate of usage than in developed countries. Trying to understand this phenomenon is fascinating.

Bandwidth (4, Funny)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134792)

After all, never underestimate the bandwidth of a series of donkey carts loaded with tapes...

Re:Bandwidth (1)

jrmcferren (935335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134830)

Or flash drives.

Re:Bandwidth (1)

jdwoods (89242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135360)

The current state of the art in maximum bandwidth might be an ultra large container vessle (ULCV) filled with containers all filled with 32GB micro-SDHC (uSDHC) cards. For example, the Emma Maersk could carry ~15,000 TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit) containers each containing 39 cubic meters (M3) of storage for a total of 585,000 M3 or 585,000,000,000 cubic cm (CM3). I haven't seen any hard statistics on maximum storage density of uSDHC cards per unit of volume, but a rough estimate of 10-15 uSDHC per CM3 seems likely. Picking 12 uSDHC/CM3 as a rough guess would allow something on the order of 200 zettabytes. But the latency would be rather high. :) And of course, one might want to provide some redundancy for bit-rot and other forms of data loss.

mandatory (1, Informative)

superwiz (655733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134806)

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full of back up tapes moving at 60 mph.

Re:mandatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135114)

So, how about a truck full of donkeys carrying backups? Is that encapsulation?

Re:mandatory (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135418)

and checksummed by a station wagon full of nuns..

I will say one thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36134808)

The porn is certainly different.

What's the difference between Syria and Libya? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36134812)

Three letters: O,I,L.

Re:What's the difference between Syria and Libya? (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134888)

Three letters: O,I,L.

This is probably the most quotable Anonymous Coward post I've ever read.

The NATO ain't going to intervene in Syria, "screw those guys!".

Re:What's the difference between Syria and Libya? (1)

he-sk (103163) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134904)

I see your 3 letters and raise to 4: Iran.

Re:What's the difference between Syria and Libya? (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135016)

I see your 3 letters and raise to 4: Iran.

Five letters. A B O M B

RFC1149 Needs an update (2)

lightyear4 (852813) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134818)

Now RFC1149 [ietf.org] for 'IP over avian carriers' needs an addendum. IETF go!

Re:RFC1149 Needs an update (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135456)

Now RFC1149 [ietf.org] for 'IP over avian carriers' needs an addendum. IETF go!

I disagree. We should all get on board with a ready backup plan based on RFC4838 [ietf.org] . Every town should have an implementation of Delay-tolerant Networking [wikipedia.org] , just in case...

NASA has already began testing an implementation of RFC1149 for use in space. [nasa.gov]

Our local DTN could use shortwave radio, and/or CB with repeaters, etc.

Alas, I fear we will only begin to build the network after it is needed... On a related note: I want the right to bear technology lumped in with the right to bear arms if my strong encryption system is going to be considered munitions.

Re:RFC1149 Needs an update (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135582)

DTN is fine and dandy, but it doesn't address the issue of what medium you are using to transmit the network. Any implementation of RFC1149 should include an implementation of RFC4838 as a matter of course, because the RTT is high. But since the operating-training for RFC1149 is so specialized, (as shown here: avian carriers would be ideal in this situation, but are being avoided because of the training and setup costs) it makes sense to expand the techniques to related mediums. Hopefully then a suitable transport medium will be available in all (or at least most) circumstances.

Remember: RFCs work together, not each on their own. They each describe a single part of the network, or even just a part of that part's behavior.

What's the 'Band' Width? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134844)

How much data is 'carried' via this 'Hoof-Net'?

MPAA (5, Funny)

ebs16 (1069862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134854)

I thought eMule was shut down!

Re:MPAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135342)

How would you possibly do that? End all electronic communication on the world forever?
I'm using it right now. (Until I found a replacement headless client-server p2p client for mldonkey.)

Re:MPAA (1)

Klinky (636952) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135854)

Sure you're not actually using WooshTorrent?

Just use an acronym for IP Over Donkey (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36134878)

We wouldn't want to pull Apple in on the government's side.

Imagine (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36134890)

a cluster of jackasses on the Information Superhighway. Shouldn't be too hard for anyone that ever sat an open channel on IRC.

Oh wait,,,

Re:Imagine (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135580)

a cluster of jackasses on the Information Superhighway. Shouldn't be too hard for anyone that ever sat an open channel on IRC.

Yes, but in this case the asses are carrying the messages rather than creating them.

Bandwidth of an motorcycle (5, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134916)

My friend owns a company in Chennai, India that does some kind of very heavy video processing/analysis for a major sports league. He ends up collecting hard disks full of video-data fro the ISP's undersea-fiber optic link office and transporting them on a motrocycle across town. He estimates the bandwidth of the motrocycle works out to some 1 DVD per second!

Re:Bandwidth of an motorcycle (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134968)

Considering the cost of last mile bandwidth in India, I wouldnt be surprised

Re:Bandwidth of an motorcycle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135120)

My boss at my very first IT job at an ISP once said this....

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a beat up old station wagon speeding down the highway with a back seat full of backup tapes."

Re:Bandwidth of an motorcycle (1)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135350)

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a beat up old station wagon speeding down the highway with a back seat full of backup tapes."

The quote (or a variation thereof) was first cited on USENET in 1985, back before ISP's were a viable business model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet#Non-fiction [wikipedia.org]

Re:Bandwidth of an motorcycle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135614)

...works out to some 1 DVD per second!

How many Library of Congresses is that?

LATENCY (1)

A10Mechanic (1056868) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134928)

I was playing BZ-Flag with this, but the latency drove me nuts. Kept getting kicked from the Donkey, oops, i meant server...

Next generation technology (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134944)

ASD - Analogue Subscriber Donkey*.

The next generation of internet communication (after your oppressive government shuts down other internet access lines).

*Speed depends on the Donkey, quality of road and driver. Government checkpoints may cause packet loss.

eDonkey? (2)

BlueScreenO'Life (1813666) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134960)

Hey, not such a bad idea [wikipedia.org] .

(TFA says "Cut off from the World Wide Web", not from the Internet)

DeDonkey'd (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36134964)

... when various donkeys show up at your stable and there is no room left for the legit carriers.

"This place smells like shit! Oh no we have been DeDonkey'd!"

Not the mexican kind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36134966)

Smuggling video footage across a border with donkeys? It gives a new meaning to the expression donkey show.

dangerous, now that youve fucking leaked it (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36134978)

great. now fucking Bashir knows to kill evey donkey on the border and to kill anyone close to the border. thanks alot journalism!

Who knew... (2)

Sinthet (2081954) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135038)

That getting online could be such a pain for the ass.

Do not under estimate meatspace bandwidth (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135096)

Do not under estimate the bandwidth and low cost of physically moving any kind of storage media.

Except for carrier pidgeons, they literally drop packets.

Syrian DSL is... (4, Funny)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135098)

Donkey Subscriber Line

Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135158)

There has got to be a [Carrier Lost] joke in there somewhere...

How would you measure that? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36135160)

Mega-Burros per minute?

... is for porn (3, Funny)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135186)

If the internet is for porn, I don't even dare to think about what happened to these poor animals.

unfortunately susceptable (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135292)

to "mule in the middle" attacks

Bring on the NBN! (1)

preacha (1233936) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135668)

So Australian broadband is up to speed with Syria at least!

Re:Bring on the NBN! (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135922)

Australia has prior art on wartime ip-over-donkey. Simpson in WW1.

However, donkeys don't deliver high throughput in the desert; we have a surplus of camels in the Territory.

Donkey Net (1)

Maxx169 (920414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36135796)

I hope they're using UDP. I'd feel bad if they were turning donkeys around and telling them to go back carrying a NACK.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>