THE NEXT GENERATION IN JOINT SUPPLEMENT FOR DOGS

Friday, May 19, 2017

Chris Cornell's Household: Prescription Medicines Might Have Influenced Self-destruction

Chris Cornell's family members has actually released a declaration doubting the coroner's record that the vocalist purposefully took his very own life on Thursday.
 
 
" When we talked after the program, I observed he was slurring his words; he was various," his better half included. "When he informed me he could have taken an additional Ativan or more, I got in touch with safety and security as well as asked that they look at him.".

She stated Cornell flew house from Soundgarden's excursion the weekend break before to hang around with his better half and also kids, prior to going back to the mid-west.

Cornell was a recuperating addict and also had actually supposedly been sober considering that 2002. I understand that he liked our kids and also he would certainly not harm them by deliberately taking his very own life. The cascade of love as well as assistance from his followers, close friends, and also household suggests so a lot even more to us compared to anybody could recognize.

The Seattle rocker was discovered dead in his resort washroom at 12:05 a.m. ET on Thursday. Soundgarden had actually played a program simply hrs prior to at Detroit's Fox Movie theater.

His fatality was ruled a self-destruction by hanging, the regional clinical inspector reported Thursday, however Cornell's household called the self-destruction statements "troubling.".

The 52-year-old singer had a prescription for Ativan, the family members shared as well as could have taken a greater dose that hindered his judgment. Lawyer Kirk Pasich kept in mind that Ativan could trigger self-destructive or paranoid ideas as well as slurred speech.

" Without the outcomes of toxicology examinations, we do unknown just what was happening with Chris-- or if any kind of compounds added to his death," the Cornell family members stated.

Cornell was a recouping addict as well as had actually apparently been sober considering that 2002. His other half, Vicky, claimed in a psychological declaration, "Chris's fatality is a loss that has as well as runs away words produced a vacuum in my heart that will certainly never ever be loaded. As every person that recognized him commented, Chris was a committed dad as well as hubby."

Ativan is a depressant and also anti-anxiety medicine that is occasionally made use of as a resting help.

I recognize that he liked our youngsters as well as he would certainly not injure them by purposefully taking his very own life. The cascade of love and also assistance from his followers, close friends, and also family members suggests so a lot even more to us compared to any person could recognize.



Keywords:  soundgarden, chris cornell cause of death, audioslave, chris cornell dead,
soundgarden songs, chris cornell songs, black hole sun, chris cornell suicide, temple of the dog,
chris cornell wife, eddie vedder, vicky karayiannis, sound garden, soundgarden black hole sun,
chris cornell death, how did chris cornell die, chris cornell you know my name,
cornell, in my time of dying, soundgarden tour, pearl jam, vicky cornell, who is chris cornell,
rock on the range, audioslave songs
 
 
 
 
 
 
Comments - Rules and Conditions - No bullying or harassment of fellow commenters. Keep it civil! - No foul language or obscenities, please. - No posting of external links. - No sex, gambling, alcohol, cigar or sames comments allow.

Friday, May 5, 2017

The Loss of Neutrality in The Network and The Danger that Can Mean

THE LOSS OF NEUTRALITY IN THE NETWORK AND THE DANGER THAT CAN MEAN


Below we reproduce an article on the Gizmodo website on an Internet-related topic that seems smaller, but in reality, it can end up being of paramount importance at many levels ...

WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE BATTLE FOR THE NEUTRALITY OF THE NETWORK (AND WHY SHOULD YOU IMPORT)
Net neutrality again? Had not that been solved three years ago?
Hopefully.
The war for network neutrality came to a kind of truce during the Obama administration, but Trump's new Republican government is preparing for a second round. This is what you need to know.
WHAT IS NEUTRALITY IN THE NETWORK?
Net Neutrality is not a law or a norm imposed by any US agency. It is only a theoretical principle of operation. It is good practice, if you prefer. Under this principle, no company offering an Internet connection can block or prioritize access to content for economic reasons.
WHAT IS DIFFERENT TO PRIORITIZE THE TRAFFIC OF A PAYMENT SERVICE?
You're probably thinking that prioritizing traffic already exists, right? The Internet is full of premium services that offer music without advertising (Spotify Premium), cinema and flat-rate series (Netflix) or priority access with higher bandwidth to online storage services (Mega).
The difference is that these services offer priority access to the content of their own servers, which are theirs for that. In other words, once the data packets come out of their servers and circulate on the Internet until you get home nothing, except the technical problems of any connection, gets in the way.
IS THIS NOT THE SAME AS THE CENSORSHIP OR THE REGIONAL BLOCKS?
Again, you may be thinking that there are already many countries in which governments or companies prohibit access to certain content. True, but it has nothing to do with net neutrality. An example of this is the web Dolar Today, which is impossible to access from Venezuela because it offers information on unofficial exchange rates that do not like the government of the country. The word that defines this is censorship.
The same thing happens when a specific video can not be played from your country because a film company or record company has not reached distribution agreements for that content in that region. The difference is that the block to that content is made at the request of its rightful owner. The telephone operator does not decide about it.
HOW WOULD BE INTERNET WITHOUT THE PRINCIPLE OF NEUTRALITY?
If the principle of neutrality were to disappear, telephony operators would be free to regulate traffic by virtue of their interests or agreements reached with other companies. Needless to say, the companies that provide you with a connection would love this to be so, because it would make them earn a lot of money.
A very close example of this we had months ago between Netflix and Telefónica. When Netflix arrived in Spain, users of the popular streaming service that had their connection to Movistar started complaining that Netflix was slowing them down. Netflix metrics confirmed the slowdown for its service, and there is no shortage of suspects that Movistar altered traffic on purpose because Netflix is ​​directly competitive with its own video services.
From Movistar, of course, they denied that they were altering traffic. After Netflix and Movistar officials met, the incident was resolved. We will not come to assess whether Movistar really cheated and tried to harm its competition, but it is the perfect example of what would happen in a world without net neutrality.
Operators could benefit from services that pay them the most. The result is that, as a user, you would not have the same quality of access to everything. Some pages would load faster, others would make it much slower without there being a technical reason behind it. It could even be the case that you can not access a particular service or page at all because your telephone company simply likes to prioritize another. Say goodbye to your freedom of choice online.
Not only is it an issue that affects users. For small companies or entrepreneurs would be a disaster. The disappearance of the principle of neutrality would prevent them from offering their contents or services on an equal basis with the large ones. In a world without net neutrality, in short, egalitarian access to the Internet would be regulated by only one thing: money.
It is noteworthy that when Obama pushed the laws to guarantee that supposed neutrality in the network, a great amount of alternative means (of right and next to the Republican party, obviously), mounted in anger, accusing Obama of pushing laws to establish censorship in the Internet .
They were quite right to protest the intervention of the US government in the network, but the alternative they propose is to give corporations (in this case, telephone operators) freedom to decide what we should see and what not, According to their economic interests.
That is to say, the alternative proposed by these "defenders of freedom" is a de facto censorship, not carried out by the "wicked government" , but by the "benefactor" corporations , which are now presented as " guarantors of freedom . "
It is curious how some have taken over the word "freedom" to fool the fools and seize everything, right?
It is the same type of gentuza that tricked great masses of unwary, making them believe that Trump was a "revolutionary anti-establishment and an anti-system . " The man who delivers de facto power to large corporations and establishes the true foundations of the New World Order. Why do you think Goldman Sachs is behind him?

CAN NOT I SOLVE THAT INSTALLING A VPN?
Yes and no. Installing a VPN allows you to access certain content if your operator chooses to block them, but VPNs are not the panacea. They all slow down traffic to a greater or lesser extent.
In other words, if your problem is precisely that the operator slows the traffic coming from certain services, accessing them from a VPN will not help you at all.
WHO DECIDES IF THE NETWORK IS NEUTRAL OR NOT?
It depends on each country. In Spain, for example, telephone operators are obliged to guarantee the quality of their network to services such as Netflix by virtue of an agreement with the National Market Commission, which is responsible for ensuring that access is equal .
In the United States, the network's neutrality is decided by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). During Obama's term, the FCC decided to keep that principle at the president's request.
In October 2004, President Obama came out in defense of the net neutrality in the United States and asked the agency to draft legislation to ensure equal trafficking.
FCC President Tom Wheeler agreed. In February of 2015, Wheeler proposed to turn the Internet into a basic service under the protection of Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Net neutrality had won a battle, but not war.
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE NOW?
The key is defining what Internet access is. At present, the FCC considers it a basic telecommunications service and, as such, must be guaranteed on equal terms. The companies that provide the service want to change this, and for this they are pressing the government with all means at their fingertips.
The result of this pressure is the Restoring Internet Freedom Act. Your name can not be more misleading. This is a proposal initiated by nine senators seeking to deprive the FCC of the power to designate Internet operators as telecommunications companies under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
If the proposal goes ahead, Internet operators will no longer be required to guarantee a basic and equal service. It is not about freeing the Internet. It is about liberalizing it as a market. The senators behind this proposal already tried to do the same in 2016 without success. They are also responsible for the recent law that basically allows ISPs to sell your browsing data.
As an incision, a news item also appeared in Gizmodo in early March ...
Following the House's favorable vote, Donald Trump has signed the law that dismantles Obama's Internet privacy standards. Carriers may continue to share the navigation data of Americans without their explicit permission.
The US Congress now allows Internet providers to sell your browsing history without your permission.

I DO NOT LIVE IN THE USA WHY SHOULD I CARE?
As the saying goes: When the beards of your neighbor see cutting, put yours to soak. If the United States passes legislation that defeats the neutrality of the network, it would set a very good precedent for operators in the rest of the world to ask their governments to do the same, and the worst thing is that they would be right. The lack of neutrality in a country would affect the competition of companies that are not from that country. It should also be noted that a vast majority of Internet services come from the United States. If they end up with the principle of neutrality, all Internet would have to adapt to the new rules, and users would not win.
WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT?
Unfortunately, the answer to that question is "very little". You may be very angry, but the ball of the decision on net neutrality is on the roof of the US Senate, the FCC, the operators of the country and the tremendous confusion of interests. As much as we are indignant, for the moment the best we can do is to be informed about the subject, to transmit that knowledge, and not to be fooled by names that invoke freedoms.
All bits of information circulating on the Internet should be treated the same. It depends on it that the network that we know and love remains what it is. If our leaders finally play it for us, maybe it's time to think seriously about choosing better leaders next time.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT:
We do not share the last phrase, typical of a web of ideology close to the Democrats.
The problem is not to vote for one or the other (that too), but rather that they are both different sides of the same evil (and at best two different evils, as in French elections, apparently).
The problem is that we have allowed the total corruption of the system and that is no longer solved by "voting for others".
This corruption of the system, embodied in the figure of politicians, is laying the foundations of the New World Order, based on the privatization and liberalization of all aspects of society, to give total control of the world to large corporations.
The political class is being vilified around the world, described as inefficient and corrupt, as it is. But this is not a coincidence. It is part of the plan to establish the new paradigm.
The "solution" that will be presented to this putrefaction will be that politicians will be replaced by "trained people" in the field of management , figures ranging from big businessmen or magnates to technocrats.
We are already seeing the substitution of traditional politicians for saving figures who, with the word "freedom" in their mouths, advocate giving total and absolute power to large corporations.
Trump and the representatives of the corporations and Wall Street that fill his administration, are a clear exponent of this.
And we reiterate what we said months ago (and that was worth a massive attack of trolls): if the elites have placed Trump in power, among other factors, is because it sets the precedent at social level, the substitution of the Traditional politicians by magnates, big businessmen and senior executives as leaders, the indispensable step to establish the New Order in which corporations will have the de facto government of the world.
Trump is the first step towards that New Order and behind it, larger "successful entrepreneurs" will emerge , ready to "take the countries as a company" .
Do they sound like a Mark Zuckerberg? It is still a rumor, but his name is already starting to sound like a possible presidential candidate for 2020 ... it is a terrible indication of what we have been warning for a long time.


Comments - Rules and Conditions - No bullying or harassment of fellow commenters. Keep it civil! - No foul language or obscenities, please. - No posting of external links. - No sex, gambling, alcohol, cigar or sames comments allow.

The Next Generation in Joint Care for Dogs