"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"FDR" wrote in message BBC World
coming through live here on XM radio.



That's not shortwave. You do know what shortwave is? Don't you?

Yes I do sir!


B.H.

"CeeTee" wrote in message
...
Just reported, many explosions happening, more to follow..

It should be rather curious to see, if with all the surveillance cameras
in and around London, they managed to capture any of the bomb
susbects from the North London Central Mosque in Finsbury Park
on video. Abu Hamza must be whacking off right about
now with much happiness..?

The UK National ID Card: http://eclectech.co.uk/clarkeidcards.php

The best description however I've seen
in an 'adjacent' newsgroup was this true gem of wisdom:

(to quote)

"Semolina Pilchard" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 07:23:22 -0400, Justme®
wrote:

6 explosions, 2 confirmed dead so far, about 90 injured.

A mere minor annoyance. If that's the best Al Quaida can do they're
in need of further lessons from the IRA.

Of course the real source of the problem is (a) the stupidity of
holding the G8 summit here and (b) moving every breathing policeman to
the vicinity of Gleneagles to protect these pampered worthless ****s -
and then telling every **** what they're doing.

It's a sure sign of a senior policeman or a top-ranking politician
that they cannot deal with more than one idea at a time.

I suggest that now that they've made summits such a ****ing circus
that they attract terrorists like ****e attracts flies, that they
should hold the next one at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
Without life support.

If our terminally stupid leaders had concentrated on dealing with
terrorism instead of having oil adventures in Iraq, we'd have been on
top of this nonsense long ago. Each and every one of the ****ers
should be broken on the wheel on prime time television.
--
Sem

I heard about it at 4:40 AM this morning when I switched on my radio and
then at Fox news on tv.My heart goes out to those inoncent people over
there.
cuhulin

wrote in message
...
I heard about it at 4:40 AM this morning when I switched on my radio and
then at Fox news on tv.My heart goes out to those inoncent people over
there.

Lying mother ****er. However unlikely, what if it turns out to have been an
IRA attack? The dead are Brit's, remember?

"The brits have NO!!! right to
ANYTHING!!! AT ALL!!! I am Schtottch Eyrie by Ancestry and I Say,the
only good brit is a DEAD brit!!!! GO IRA,GO!"

Sound familiar, ****wit? You've said it often enough.

wrote:

I (and I'm sure others) have found time and time again that webfeeds of
various broadcasters fail, when listening counts most --- during a
national emergency. Being able to quickly scale up to handle a large
number of listeners is very important. Of course, shortwave doesn't
have such fan-out issues...

I tried both the BBC website and the URL you listed to no avail.

There's a report in this thread that the phone system was shut down,
since cell phones are used as detonator timers. If the internet lines
were shut down, that would explain why BBC online was unreachable. Maybe
after having four bombs go off in central London near Bush House, BBC
management will start beefing up shortwave BBCWS and other over the air
BBC services? I hope they're getting a firsthand lesson on how
unreliable their much vaunted internet technology is when it's needed
most. It's hard to believe that the original purpose of the internet was
to create a communication network capable of surviving a nuclear war. A
few guys with bombs can overload it. Imagine what blowing up the
buildings housing the root servers could do.


Joel Rubin wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:33:30 +1200, CeeTee wrote:

Just reported, many explosions happening, more to follow..

1) While I was able to listen to BBC Radio 4 (the talk station) on
line with my saved Real Audio .ram file, the normal way to listen is
via a pop up window on their website and I was unable to connect to
their web site.

So for most people, BBC radio on line was NOT reachable.

Here is the pointer for realaudio:

rtsp://rmlivev8.bbc.net.uk/farm/*/ev7/live24/radio4/live/r4_dsat_g2.ra



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"running dogg" wrote

There's a report in this thread that the phone system was shut down,
since cell phones are used as detonator timers.

Cell phones systems can be "shutdown" independant of landline phone systems
if that is so desired.

If the internet lines
were shut down, that would explain why BBC online was unreachable.

It is more likely that they were simply overwhelmed.

Maybe
after having four bombs go off in central London near Bush House, BBC
management will start beefing up shortwave BBCWS and other over the air
BBC services? I hope they're getting a firsthand lesson on how
unreliable their much vaunted internet technology is when it's needed
most.

A few more disasteroius incidents like this should make them come around if
they have any sense at all.

It's hard to believe that the original purpose of the internet was
to create a communication network capable of surviving a nuclear war. A
few guys with bombs can overload it. Imagine what blowing up the
buildings housing the root servers could do.

The TCP/IP network is the most robust communications network in wide use
today.
It was designed to be able to automatically route traffic around "damaged"
fabric. If
servers need to be "bomb proof" they are mirrored and located at
geographically
diverse locations so that if one server takes a hit the other(s) will
survive. That is the
idea. Whether or not the now "public" non-military internet practices such
mission
critical diversity is another matter.

Apologies if anyone was offended by my quoting the above musings from
another NG. No bad intent was meant or implied as it is an example of
x-treme sarcasm which I recognized and read which others obviously do
not. (just try and not take things so seriously just like that which is
spoken on shortwave on a daily basis)

Roger - High Epopt 58=B0
Church Of The Holy Bowlsplash
Keeper of the Sacred Rubber Flappervalve of Planet-X (Made in China)


Church of The Holy Bowlsplash wrote:
"CeeTee" wrote in message
...
Just reported, many explosions happening, more to follow..

It should be rather curious to see, if with all the surveillance cameras
in and around London, they managed to capture any of the bomb
susbects from the North London Central Mosque in Finsbury Park
on video. Abu Hamza must be whacking off right about
now with much happiness..?

The UK National ID Card: http://eclectech.co.uk/clarkeidcards.php

The best description however I've seen
in an 'adjacent' newsgroup was this true gem of wisdom:

(to quote)

"Semolina Pilchard" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 07:23:22 -0400, Justme=AE
wrote:

6 explosions, 2 confirmed dead so far, about 90 injured.

A mere minor annoyance. If that's the best Al Quaida can do they're
in need of further lessons from the IRA.

Of course the real source of the problem is (a) the stupidity of
holding the G8 summit here and (b) moving every breathing policeman to
the vicinity of Gleneagles to protect these pampered worthless ****s -
and then telling every **** what they're doing.

It's a sure sign of a senior policeman or a top-ranking politician
that they cannot deal with more than one idea at a time.

I suggest that now that they've made summits such a ****ing circus
that they attract terrorists like ****e attracts flies, that they
should hold the next one at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
Without life support.

If our terminally stupid leaders had concentrated on dealing with
terrorism instead of having oil adventures in Iraq, we'd have been on
top of this nonsense long ago. Each and every one of the ****ers
should be broken on the wheel on prime time television.
--=20
Sem

Panopticon wrote:

"running dogg" wrote

There's a report in this thread that the phone system was shut down,
since cell phones are used as detonator timers.

Cell phones systems can be "shutdown" independant of landline phone systems
if that is so desired.

If the internet lines
were shut down, that would explain why BBC online was unreachable.

It is more likely that they were simply overwhelmed.

Hey, I was just throwing out a theory. Your idea is better though, the
always ubiquitous gremlin of "net congestion". Net congestion happens
all the time on normal days. Of course, if your connection suffers from
net congestion, your feed will abruptly cut off for "buffering" and/or
it will gradually degrade until it starts sounding like BBs rattling
around in a soup can. In the worst case scenario, the feed will simply
shut down and refuse to function completely. Over the air radio doesn't
have these problems, of course.

Maybe
after having four bombs go off in central London near Bush House, BBC
management will start beefing up shortwave BBCWS and other over the air
BBC services? I hope they're getting a firsthand lesson on how
unreliable their much vaunted internet technology is when it's needed
most.

A few more disasteroius incidents like this should make them come around if
they have any sense at all.

A very big if. BBC suits have shown absolutely no glimmer of sense.
Neither has the VOA, which is run by a guy who thinks that Eminem can
win the war on terror. The utter failure of Sawa/Farda in preventing
terror attacks should be enough reason to can Pattiz.

It's hard to believe that the original purpose of the internet was
to create a communication network capable of surviving a nuclear war. A
few guys with bombs can overload it. Imagine what blowing up the
buildings housing the root servers could do.

The TCP/IP network is the most robust communications network in wide use
today.
It was designed to be able to automatically route traffic around "damaged"
fabric. If
servers need to be "bomb proof" they are mirrored and located at
geographically
diverse locations so that if one server takes a hit the other(s) will
survive. That is the
idea. Whether or not the now "public" non-military internet practices such
mission
critical diversity is another matter.

Your robust communications network may work fine overall, but if too
many people try jamming on to one site that area quickly goes down. The
network is only as robust as the servers which comprise it, and those
servers keep going down in times of greatest need. Radio Australia's
webfeed went down after the tsunami hit, and RA was playing cricket
matches as the horror unfolded.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"running dogg" wrote
If the internet lines
were shut down, that would explain why BBC online was unreachable.

It is more likely that they were simply overwhelmed.

Hey, I was just throwing out a theory. Your idea is better though, the
always ubiquitous gremlin of "net congestion". Net congestion happens
all the time on normal days. Of course, if your connection suffers from
net congestion, your feed will abruptly cut off for "buffering" and/or
it will gradually degrade until it starts sounding like BBs rattling
around in a soup can. In the worst case scenario, the feed will simply
shut down and refuse to function completely. Over the air radio doesn't
have these problems, of course.

It may not neccessarilly have been net congestion, although it likely
contributed.
The server may have simply run out of available "sockets" from so many
requests. In which
case you won't be able to make any connection. It is somewhat akin to
repeatedly
dialing a call-in telephone number where there are only 10 lines available
and 1000
persons are calling. Everyone can get a dialtone to dial the number but
the other end doesn't have enough incoming lines - busy signal.


The TCP/IP network is the most robust communications network in wide use
today.
It was designed to be able to automatically route traffic around
"damaged"
fabric. If
servers need to be "bomb proof" they are mirrored and located at
geographically
diverse locations so that if one server takes a hit the other(s) will
survive. That is the
idea. Whether or not the now "public" non-military internet practices
such
mission
critical diversity is another matter.

Your robust communications network may work fine overall, but if too
many people try jamming on to one site that area quickly goes down.
The
network is only as robust as the servers which comprise it, and those
servers keep going down in times of greatest need. Radio Australia's
webfeed went down after the tsunami hit, and RA was playing cricket
matches as the horror unfolded.

See my "sockets" explaination above. It would require one hell of a lot of
users attempting a simple "connect" to jam up the internet. The bandwidth
required
for a single users' browser to request a simple connect is smaller than
miniscule.
Consider NASA's web site on July 4th with 1 billion requests - a record!
Server survived and
people were served. Plenty of internet bandwidth and robustness. What is
important
is the servers' capability and its subscribed bandwidth to its internet
provider. Once the
"packets" reach the internet backbone its whoooooosh - light speed baby!

Article at www.homelandsecurityus.com Report: One UK Bomber Was
Recent Gitmo Release.Real nice,eh? Release them so they can do it again.
cuhulin