Page 1 of 1
Army says "Free thineself from innArwebs"
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 10:41 am
by complacent
...while you're using a DoD computer.
There will be a few troops (in theater) who will not be able to get "full on" innerwebnets from now on.
Article
hmah.
The Defense Department will begin blocking access "worldwide" to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other popular Web sites on its computers and networks, according to a memo sent Friday by Gen. B.B. Bell, the U.S. Forces Korea commander.
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 10:54 am
by chicken n waffles
ha! ha! teh armiez can't uze teh innarwebz!!1
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 11:12 am
by Mr Kleen
but they can still get to
www.FoxNews.com, right?
(i just checked to be sure that the link was in fact Fox News and damn their site is UGLY!)
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 11:29 am
by Cereb Daithi
well that sucks...
oh and gabe. i bravely went to fox.... my god.. i should offer to redo their site!
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 11:29 am
by chicken n waffles
something something lowest common denominator.
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 12:34 pm
by Mr Kleen
for a minute I thought it was a fake site, it's just that ugly. like wearing magic glasses that allow you to see inside Bill O'Reilly's soul...
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 12:55 pm
by Libra Monkee
I heard for a while that they were talking about blocking anything that wasn't on a .gov or .mil domain.
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 2:49 pm
by Sabre
Just think of all the bandwidth they'll save! I mean hell, with all that money saved they can buy another one of these:
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 4:45 pm
by complacent
To be honest I think it's a good thing. I can't even begin to touch on over-saturation issues that are worldwide right now... Talk about a PITA to support!
mah pipes r beink clogg'd.
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:13 am
by WANGAN_X
man all those sites were already blocked at lee when i was in...
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:16 am
by sirwilliam
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:41 am
by chicken n waffles
your job's just looking out for your best interests
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 10:54 am
by sirwilliam
chicken n waffles wrote:
your job's just looking out for your best interests
That is my third job.
So you must not get fox news either. Don't be sad.
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:02 am
by chicken n waffles
i don't get fox news by choice
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:07 am
by sirwilliam
chicken n waffles wrote:i don't get fox news by choice
It was a joke...Geez!
Not as bad as having the south american dictator/leader take away the only opposing/free speech tv station for that country.
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:25 am
by chicken n waffles
sirwilliam wrote:chicken n waffles wrote:i don't get fox news by choice
It was a joke...Geez!
Not as bad as having the south american dictator/leader take away the only opposing/free speech tv station for that country.
obviously your sarcasm detector is offline for maintenance.
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:28 am
by sirwilliam
chicken n waffles wrote:sirwilliam wrote:chicken n waffles wrote:i don't get fox news by choice
It was a joke...Geez!
Not as bad as having the south american dictator/leader take away the only opposing/free speech tv station for that country.
obviously your sarcasm detector is offline for maintenance.
Yeah, I think it is the 3.5 hrs of sleep I got last night. Oh well, better luck next time, huh?
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:28 am
by chicken n waffles
i'm running on 4.5 so i feel your pain
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 am
by Libra Monkee
^^^/\/\^^^ I got you both beat. 3 hours and a can of Red Bull are that are keeping me running right meow. Needless to say, the temper's a bit short today.
/hijack
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:45 am
by sirwilliam
Libra Monkee wrote:^^^/\/\^^^ I got you both beat. 3 hours and a can of Red Bull are that are keeping me running right meow. Needless to say, the temper's a bit short today.
/hijack
Yeah, I hear that. I have been a little blunt to some individuals at work this morning.
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 1:19 pm
by zaxrex
sirwilliam wrote:Not as bad as having the south american dictator/leader take away the only opposing/free speech tv station for that country.
To their defense, the station was broadcasting a Julia Roberts movie while the palace was being overrun. Here the FCC and Press Corps would have suspended their license and revoked their credentails. Biased news reporting is one thing, but covering up a major political overthrow is quite another.
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 1:45 pm
by sirwilliam
zaxrex wrote:sirwilliam wrote:Not as bad as having the south american dictator/leader take away the only opposing/free speech tv station for that country.
To their defense, the station was broadcasting a Julia Roberts movie while the palace was being overrun. Here the FCC and Press Corps would have suspended their license and revoked their credentails. Biased news reporting is one thing, but covering up a major political overthrow is quite another.
See, I only got one side of the story...hard to get an unbias news report nowadays.