Presidential control of the internet...?
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=182788
Printed Date: 14 July 2025 at 10:22am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Presidential control of the internet...?
Posted By: WGP guy2
Subject: Presidential control of the internet...?
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 12:03pm
|
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html%20 - http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html Thoughts? |
Replies:
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 12:22pm
|
NoooooooO!O!!O!OO!!!
There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network. ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 12:23pm
|
Networks were created neutral and thus should remain so or the innovation of the Internet will cease to exist or turn to crap. If there was such power over the tubes who knows what could happen!
------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 12:47pm
| Net neutrality is hugely important, I'll be really, really, really unhappy if that changed. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 2:07pm
| For somebody a little more dork than me, what exactly would be involved in a cyber terrorism attack? |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 2:32pm
The new "policies" that companies would have to jump through to pass the governments "standards" are a slippery slope, and will cost big bucks.
The sad thing is, the internet was made so that in the event of a major loss (nuclear attack) anyone could hook up and start communicating with just a phone line...
So to have the power to shut it all down... That would take a serious restructuring of the current system. As you can't "shut it down" currently. It is just a series of computers. None needing others to work...
I guess Obama can look at how china handles their internet...
Nice pick guys, this Obama is the most power hungry politician ever. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
agentwhale007 wrote:Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 2:42pm
|
Skynet!
------------- 
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 3:03pm
It's a very broad term. Anything from DDoS attacks to widspread virus releases could technically be called "cyber terrorism". Heck, some of 4chan's antics could probably qualify as "cyber-terrorism". The thing is, people have been talking about it for years and we've never actually seen any catistrophic attacks. For the most part, attacks are either done by people who simply can and want to (e.g blaster worm) or, more reccently, by people who are trying to make money. It just isn't feasible to try to destroy the tubes. In the event of a real attack, I'm pretty sure anyone being targeted would just shut down their servers and call it a day. I don't see what they hope being able to shut down entire ISPs will accomplish. That's like killing everyone in the world who might want to steal the Hope Diamond instead of putting the diamond in safe. It's a weird move, considering Obama was pro-net neautrality. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 4:21pm
|
Haven't you guys seen Die Hard 4?
------------- 
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 4:25pm
First thing I thought of. IT IS A FIRE SALE EVERYTHING MUST GO! ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 4:29pm
|
Didn't Al Gore invent the internet anyway? So surely they can control it :)
KBK PS, the previous post may contain sarcasm |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 5:18pm
|
Tricky stuff. Governments have always had (and appropriately so) the power to seize/control/shut off national infrastructure and major industry during national emergencies. And at this point, the internet really is part of the infrastructure. For national security purposes, it would seem we either have to allow the government to step in during emergencies, or accept rules restricting the application of the internet to non-essential functions.
There is of course the very important matter of process and safeguards, but the fundamental principle seems to be the lesser of two evils.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 5:23pm
|
One has to wonder...why are national infrastructures accessible and functioning on the public internet anyway? The gov already has plenty intranets, why not contain all of their stuff on intranets rather than having to mess with the public internet. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 5:32pm
|
Well, taking the government off-line would certainly increase security - and many critical systems are in fact not connected to the internet.
Of course, going off-line would increase cost, decrease the free availability of information to regular folks, and generally be a pain in the butt.
More importantly, it wouldn't fix the problem. "Infrastructure" isn't just public stuff - most of the infrastructure is private or semi-private. Power plants, big factories, airplanes, airports, seaports, roads... a lot of private stuff there. To insulate "the infrastructure" from teh interwebz you would have to take half the country off-line.
And even then it wouldn't be enough. Imaging cyberattacks on the stock exchanges? Health insurance reimbursements? Gasoline distribution networks? FedEx? Heck, just a bunch of random office computers in Mid-Town?
The internet basically makes EVERYTHING "infrastructure" for security purposes, since the internet can be used to attack anything. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 5:34pm
Why? I'm not saying there isn't a reason, I just think that being able to communicate over large areas is a pretty important thing, and someone else deciding when you can and can't do that isn't really a good idea. What makes their judgement better than the users? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 5:55pm
I don't think that is what this is about. Imagine that evil haxorz start systematically opening all the sluices in hydroelectric facilities across the nation. Flooding, blackouts - all kinds of bad things happen. Once it were discovered, we would need to take every other dam offline right NOW, even if that means taking all of Oregon offline as well, and that could be more effectively done by government than by any private actor.
For instance.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 6:51pm
Yeah, but thats ENTIRELY beyond what would be necessary. If sys admins started noticing external attacks on their network, they don't begin firing off countermeasures and hacking the IPs to tie up the intertubes. They pull the plug on external traffic. The whole hollywood hacking thing doesn't happen in real life. It's addressing a problem that's in the imagination of hollywood scriptwriters ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 7:03pm
Hence my point about controls and oversight. The problem with emergencies is that the mostly take you by surprise. Emergency powers, almost by definition, have to be fairly broad to be meaningful. But at the same time, of course, you are right that we ought not give emergency powers for emergencies that cannot happen, or emergency powers unrelated to or in excess of the actual emergency.
I think part of the problem here is that we don't have a lot of experience with real cyberwar/cyberterrorism, and at the same time technology keeps changing. So we are left with a situation where there is an apparent vulnerability, but we don't really know what the attack would be or what the fix would be. Not easy.
BUT - as to this:
I think you have a vastly optimistic view of (a) the capabilities of corporate admins, (b) the authority of corporate admins, (c) the willingness of corporate admins to cut off external traffic, and (d) the number of facilities/companies who even have sys admins at all.
If I am guilty of overestimating the prowess of Johnny Zero, you are guilty of overestimating the state of computer defense in corporate America.
:)
Wanna know what it would take to shut off 90%+ of all windmills in North America? Hack into one web server.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 8:17pm
To an extent I suppose. I am basing my opinion on what I know of network security. I'm hardly suggesting network techs are all knowing and all powerful, quite the oppisite. What I am saying is that in the event of a deliberate attack on the internet (which is still a silly concept), system admins would be more likely to shut down their servers then risk someone gaining illegal access. If you pull the cord, it doesn't matter if you're trinity, you're not gaining access to that system. The way I'm reading this proposed bill, Obama would have the power to limit access or activities on the internet to hopefully stop any coordinated attack. I can only assume that these are the only two options since there is no way any entity (save for God perhaps, no, not the forumer) could truly monitor everything on the internet with present technology, and even if it were possible, sorting all that data would be impossible, and reacting would be harder still. So that leaves the option of shutting down the internet essentially. That is overkill, and again, its approaching the problem from the wrong side. Sorry, I'll explain myself better a litte later, my Circuits class starts in 15 minutes. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 8:28pm
| The way I see it, the people who should be monitored are smart enough to know how not to be. As a result the people who are monitored are innocent and uninvolved. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 8:43pm
I don't think there is a worry about an attack "on the internet" so much as attacks using the internet - like shutting down powerplants or messing with flight control computers.
And here I have to massively disagree. If our network was pulled offline for even a second due to anything short of WWIII, heads would roll. Instant firings for everybody involved in the decision. It would take something truly astounding - and the admin would have to KNOW it was something truly astounding - for any plug to get pulled. Because if he is wrong, and our competitors stayed online without going down, then he is getting fired. On the other hand, if he leaves us online and we go down in flames, but so do our competitors, then he's probably ok.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 9:03pm
Seriously Peter? Thats the first unintelligent thing I've ever heard you say. If you really mean a flight control computer, which takes signals from control inputs in the cockpit, and then activates mechanical systems to move various surfaces on the aircraft, then you should reconsider. Obviously they aren't connected to the internet or anything outside of the aircraft.  |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 11:03pm
|
That's what I get for going outside my technological comfort zone... Should have stuck with the power plants. :)
But what I meant was the computers in the airport control tower. I don't know if they are connected either, so still not my safest example, but if they are connected they are vulnerable.
But the larger point, of course, is that any computer that is connected to the internet is vulnerable to attacks from the internet, and there are things connected to the internet that many people may not think of, and their security may not be as good as many people think.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 11:57am
No, I'm fairly certain ISPs will still be best at this, considering they own the pipe the govt. is using as well as the backbone needed to reach point B from A. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 2:15pm
I was just thinking that... Again this is worrying about hollywood hackers, not reality. |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 2:20pm
|
so much for Net neutrality. Had this been Bush all you kiddies would be freaking out gathering E-torches and E-pitch forks. ------------- 
|
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 4:05pm
If you go back and read the posts you'll see everyone, with the exception of Peter, is against it. I think the whole Bush/Obama thing really doesn't apply in this case. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 4:46pm
What are you talking about? All of us are against this.... |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 5:13pm
Soo... Is it completely Hollywood to think that a skilled group of computer people could break into a single web server and intercept communications passing through?
It is not difficult to find examples in recent history of intentional intrusions into well-secured computer systems. So far these intruders have been more interested in credit card numbers than the electrical grid, but that could easily change - and trust me when I say that credit card numbers are far better secured than some of the computers controlling the grid.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 7:27pm
|
The problem with the hollywood hacker is it assumes that A. Hackers are invincible and know everything and B. Sys admins are retards. As for your example, sure, if you shut down your company website, I'm betting the company would be peeved. But is your company website actually hosted on the same servers as sensitive data reccords? Do users have and need access to these reccords? I'm really curious, I don't know much about how coperate enterprises have their databases set up, but it would strike me that any competant sys admin would have things set up that the sensitive information could be taken offline. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 7:41pm
Hollywood, maybe - my position is that corporate sys admins are under tremendous pressure from people who don't care about anything except uniterrrupted service, and those same admins are not willing to risk their jobs to save the company. As a result, CYA is the prime driver, not conservative security.
The power grid in question is the North American electrical power grid (not including Hawaii, of course, where things run off whale poop and poi burners). There is no "the grid" as a single thing, however. It is fully decentralized, mostly, as it consists almost entirely of privately owned transmission lines and power plants.
It is also very fragile. ONE transmission line went down in Ohio a few years back (probably a tree falling), and it blacked out most of the Eastern seaboard for a week.
And as a result, there are thousands of entry points where one could easily cause vast damage. For instance, almost all windmills use one of two or three SCADA systems (remote access software). Windmills are unmanned, and controlled remotely via the internet. The access runs through servers run by the SCADA software companies. So hack into a regular old web server and you could quickly gain control over thousands of windmills.
Shut them all down, and Texas, California, and Minnesota go black, and probably take the rest of the Midwest and Great Plains with them.
There is no "the" sys admin. Decentralized. Thousands of sys admins. They will not act in perfect concert.
Sure - all of which countermeasures can be and have been penetrated.
As to corporate networks, it isn't about the web server, but about outside access. If you off internet because of intrusion fears, you cut me off from my email and my IP phones, and thereby cut me off. Since my entire business consists of talking to the outside world, you just shut down the entire firm.
You had better be very, very, very sure that the network would be destroyed completely before you cut off access.
"Peeved" isn't the word.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 7:51pm
|
We are Samurai... the Keyboard Cowboys. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 10:19pm
And I'm not sure I am in favor of this either. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: FarSeer
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 11:16pm
I'll just leave this here...
------------- http://tbish.webs.com/tippy.html - My E-Bolted 98 |
Posted By: mod98commando
Date Posted: 30 August 2009 at 2:31am
|
Wow, I'm absolutely opposed to this one. Obama is really trying to get the government's hands into everything isn't he. If he really wants to secure the nation's critical infrastructure and their related networks then he should have them off the public internet communication lines and put them on an entirely new network. Is that a major project? Yes. Is there any better way to secure the network? Nope. It will cost money to set that up but it will cost way more to try and keep these critical networks secure when they communicate over public lines. I took a web security class last semester taught by a man who works for the NSA and has worked in the field for years. According to him, Peter is right in saying that many companies or private entities are less capable of securing their networks than they should be. However, government control would not solve this problem and would likely make it worse. Not to mention the fact that the bill in question would allow them access to private networks which opens the door for abuse of power and it would be very difficult to detect. Web security is one of those fields where the chain of events is very cyclical; a security measure is put in place and eventually cracked. At that point, the breach is detected and a new measure is put in place, securing the network for a little longer. Then the cycle keeps repeating. So long as there are any conditions by which you can gain access to a network legitimately, people will be able to break in. The best you can do is make it take so long to break in that the cyber criminal doesn't want to waste his time. This is where heavy duty encryption and such come in. However, encryption, firewalls, and other security measures will slow things down and complicate things for legitimate users. So basically, paying a bunch of security guys to constantly fight a losing battle and leaving the data at risk is not worth it. Spending the money to build a separate network that can not be accessed on public lines would create a major roadblock for these cyber criminals. At that point, they would need to physically be at a location with a connection to this network in order to break in. The only other way would be to use an unsecured computer that is connected to both the new network and the public lines to break in which is why some security will still be needed but it makes things far more difficult for attackers. In addition, these companies should be subject to more extensive security audits and their security employees should need some sort of certification to be put in charge of security for such critical networks. It is extremely easy for people to do damage over public networks and people just don't realize it, nor do they understand how to deal with it. When you understand that communications over the internet are not direct point-to-point but rather broadcast communication then you realize that anybody can intercept your data as long as they tell their computer to listen for it. This is as simple as downloading a few free applications nowadays. We used Wireshark and Netstumbler/Vistumbler for class to see how easy it is to do that. Encryption and firewalls complicate things but there are usually ways around that. Then there's the good old DDoS attack which can't be stopped in any way. If a cyber criminal wants to cut off communication to a server, all they have to do is flood it with requests to the point that it can't handle legitimate requests for data. They use a network of computers, often numbering in the thousands, to achieve this in a decentralized manner so that you can't just block them. These computers are often owned by people like you and me except that some sort of trojan made its way onto the system and added you to a botnet, controlled by some guy anywhere in the world. Again, this power can be obtained through the use of simple free programs available online. The internet is still young and securing it is extremely difficult due to its design. If you truly want a network secure, you keep it off public lines. PERIOD. Also, as Darur said, important data is often kept separate from the rest of corporate networks for security reasons. It will be accessible from internal computers and may be accessible from the internet but you can cut off access to these servers without cutting off all internet access. So, Peter, in your hypothetical where the IT guy cuts access to the servers because of a hardcore security breach, you shouldn't lose all internet access. If the company hosts it's own mail on those servers with the other data, then you won't be able to access it. However, it is likely that email is kept separate or even managed externally by somebody like google. The security guy should have things setup so he can disconnect the servers containing sensitive data in case of a major breach without shutting down other essential services. My thoughts on this bill, as it is with most of the other stuff that the Obama administration has dreamed up, is that it addresses a real problem but proposes the wrong fix. I'm glad he is deciding to address issues like this but for the love of god, he needs to come up with better solutions. ------------- oreomann33: Everybody invades Poland Rofl_Mao: And everyone eats turkey Me: But only if they're hungary Mack: Yeah but hungary people go russian through their food and end up with greece on everyth |
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 30 August 2009 at 3:00am
|
^ what he said. ------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 30 August 2009 at 3:42am
|
Christ. For once I agree (somewhat) with FE. This is a crap idea. BUT. Do I think it was some plan Obama and the rest of the current people thought up? Hell no. This is for you FE: For once recognize that ALL political parties are just as idiotic. Maybe not so in certain areas, but for the most part its the same ball game. Those of us who actually follow this stuff know that it doesnt matter what party is in charge, this same crap in regards to telecommunications keep happening. For example off the top of my head: Clinton era: Communications Decency Act (Struck down for violating the 1st ammendment) The Clipper Chip (Derailed by public outcry) Trusted Computing (Both administrations) Digital Millenium Copyright Act And others such as Tempest technology Bush era: Trusted Computing (See above) Magic Lantern And christ knows what else Whats the commonality here? All of these have been derailed or exposed or at least widely broken and flaunted. I dont care what side of the aisle they sit on, they dont have the brains or rights to mess with the net. "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- John Gilmore ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 30 August 2009 at 4:52am
You are correct in that the bill addresses a real problem, most of this bill I feel like comes from a result of the U.S electric grid being infiltrated by "spies" (but nothing really being done to it...). This bill addresses a problem but still fails to offer a legit solution. I remember reading that Obama even hired a "cyber-security czar" (which resigned not that long ago I believe), whom apparently did virtually nothing at all. There was even a call for standardization of network security (which is a bad idea, because that would give the black hat hackers a good idea of what to do/not to do). I really feel like it's all an attempt to fix a problem that really isn't understood by politicians (series of tubes, srsly). No matter what Obama does, there will always be some new exploit, or even some new security breach (like social engineering, or simply an employee gone bad) out there, something is bound to happen. I believe Obama did order security audits all around in the beginning of the year, I feel like that is a step in the right direction in fortifying things up a bit, but still the possibility of attack is still there. ------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 30 August 2009 at 12:46pm
|
Oh, I agree that both parties are not concerned with their affect on the general public.
That is the main reason the Republican party is in shambles. As republicans who were once on board have seen too much hypocrasy and garbage that Bush did, (including the first bailout), all the trampling of the constitution.
Ultimate power corrupts ultimately...
That is the issue, and Obama is taking this thought to a new level.
In seven months he has done more to damage our constitution than any other president in the history of our democracy, and he is only getting started...
But, both parties don't care about the people at all. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 31 August 2009 at 9:21am
|
And they care even less for small businesses...
Nice job there Liberal leader of the Senate Harry Reid.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/56171937.html - http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/56171937.html
Nice to see a publisher with the guts to stand up to your bullying tactics. I guess you better pass a law that runs him out of business. Or ban him from the internet...
Oh, and Charlie Rangel forgot about a million dollars of income... He should be good for a cabinet position in Obama's white house, there is room for more tax cheats, and frauds.
And he is in charge of writing tax laws... NICE...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376720192072820.html - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376720192072820.html
Corrupt liberals that attack business while not paying their taxes... Typical...
They don't care about you. Only padding their pockets and "good" press.
Don't worry, the major media outlets will ignore this. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 31 August 2009 at 9:47am
|
Bullying? All he said was "I hope you go out of business". I fail to see a threat. Also, Rangel couldn't possibly have had someone else do his finances that did in fact miss all that stuff? No that couldn't happen. Granted that is most likely not the case and he probably tried to hide some money. Still not that big of a deal, makes no difference to me. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 01 September 2009 at 4:19pm
|
hmm...
So if you disagree with Obamacare, you are a right wing domestic terrorist now...
Well, this whole "internet terrorist attack" thing is making more sense. Passing a bill to silence the right wing.
Freedom is dying in America.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/01/obamas-team-crosses-the-rhetorical-line/ - http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/01/obamas-team-crosses-the-rhetorical-line/
^ anyone who supports someone like that has no concept of "freedom".
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 01 September 2009 at 5:34pm
|
While I generally agree with your point here FE, your sources and the expressions you use should be left with Glenn Beck.
------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 01 September 2009 at 5:46pm
-------------
|