(INTELLIHUB) — It turns out that all of us would have been wise to heed the advice from our mothers as the globalists aren’t just encouraging us to jump off a cliff, they are, in fact, pushing us off of the proverbial cliff in a deliberate attempt to fulfill the their mandate which is to eliminate a substantial portion of humanity. Meanwhile, the globalists will be safely tucked away in some underground structure free from the harm that they are perpetrating upon humanity. Sadly, many of our friends and family members are willingly going to their demise without so much as a whimper.
Heretofore, the topic of intentional depopulation was the perceived product of paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists who had too much time on their hands. The most frequent refrain from the unaware is that “they” would never do that. However, the globalists have left an unmistakable paper trail in which their true agenda is exposed.
If you find tracking news on Twitter a difficult task due to the amount of stories showing up, and the often missing context helping you understand the value and relevance of what is being shared, here is a new tool that may help you quiet down the visual noise and find more rapidly what is really important.
Vellum is a new free web app born out of a quick experiment at the New York Times R&D labs which allows you to see all of the most relevant Twitter stories coming from the people you follow, stripped of their commentary and showing their original title, description and source.
Vellum filters out text only tweets that contain no links, eliminates duplicates and surfaces only those tweets that have already been retweeted by multiple people.
“Vellum acts as a reading list for your Twitter feed, finding all the links that are being shared by those you follow on Twitter and displaying them each with their full titles and descriptions.
This flips the Twitter model, treating the links as primary and the commentary as secondary (you can still see all the tweets about each link, but they are less prominent).
If net neutrality is so important, why is it so controversial? It’s complicated.
Alexis C. Madrigal and Adrienne LaFrance Apr 25 2014
EXTRACT
But this debate isn't just about the specific wording of the possible FCC rules (though those are important). People have been talking about the principle of net neutrality, in one way or another, for more than 15 years, since Monica Lewinsky dominated the headlines.
This idea of net neutrality—this cherished idea, even, among Internet entrepreneurs and activists—has a long history, roughly as long as the commercial world wide web. It is, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig has argued, what makes the Internet special.
He used to call the principle e2e, for end to end: “e2e. Not b2b, or b2c, or c2b, or b2g, or g2b, but e2e. End to end. The core of the Internet, the core value that defined its power, the core truth that made innovation around it possible, is this e2e,” Lessig said in a 1999 talk. “The fact – a fact – that the network could not discriminate in the way that AT&T could.”
By common law, common carriers were 1) required to serve upon reasonable demand, any and all who sought out their services; 2) held to a high standard of care for the property entrusted to them; and 3) limited to incidental damages for breach of duty. The concept of common carriage crossed the Atlantic and became part of the American legal system. Common carriage was broadly applied to railroads and later other transportation as well as communications media. In 1901, following many state courts, the U.S. Supreme Court held that at common law– i.e., even without a specific statute– a telegraph company is a common carrier and owes a duty of non-discrimination.
Pirate Parties: In one month, on May 25 at 20:00, the voting stations close for the European Elections. You’re never entitled to complain when media doesn’t cover you, but for some reason, the fifth-largest party out of Sweden’s eight – the Pirate Party – is consistently omitted from listings, events, debates, and coverage ahead of European Elections. For a challenger, this would be acceptable, but not for a defender of title: the pretend-does-not-exist attitude is reaching ridiculous levels.
Sweden has eight parties in the European Parliament, all of which are up for re-election in exactly one month. Of these, the Pirate Party is the fifth largest with two seats out of Sweden’s 20; three political parties are measurably smaller with just one seat. In a reasonable election, these eight parties – defenders of their respective title – would be treated fairly equally, with credible challengers given a go at pointing out the shortcomings of the title defenders.
Yesterday, the Svenska Dagbladet (“Swedish Daily Paper”) – as the name implies, one of Sweden’s largest daily newspapers – published their election assistant with 25 questions to assist people in choosing which party to vote for. Launched on April 25, with the European Elections one month out, on May 25 – perfect timing. There’s only one strange catch: you can’t get a recommendation to vote for the Pirate Party. As in, the party is not even in there. The other seven title-defending parties are, as well as one challenger. The election assistant is effectively saying that the Pirate Party does not exist, but all the other seven do.
Now quite a few people have embraced Amazon’s flawed, yet popular, recommendations service. I am trying to remember when I first noticed this somewhat annoying feature of the digital WalMart. I cannot recall. I am reminded of the weaknesses of the system each time I log in and see recommendations to my wife’s book selections. Undoubtedly she and I are not following Amazon’s best practices. My wife is pretty familiar with my user name and password, Amazon, and the ease with which she can order products (dog vitamins), novels (wonky mysteries infused with herring), and oddments I know won’t plug into my computer systems; for example, something for a faux soft drink machine.
My view is that for some folks, an Amazon habit is going (note the present progressive) to be difficult to modify. Even though Amazon is struggling to deliver profit joy, the Amazon online shopping thing has quite a following.
Well, just in the nick of time–is it years too late?—IBM says it will apply the billion dollar baby to meet my shopping needs. Oh, yeah. Here’s what I learned from the write up:
The sad reality is that international finance has largely become a criminal enterprise. This is part of the growing Inequity Trend and, I think, it is going to lead to another worldwide economic collapse sometime in the near future. Click through to see the video.
