I can see that you clearly hate the US, but that doesn't mean you should pretend that every other regime/government in the world doesn't persecute anyone.

There are a great number of regimes that unjustly persecute people, and I think a little unbiased research would do you good.

I can't tell how serious you're being, and it takes trivial googleing to see you're incorrect, so I'm starting to feel a little like I'm feeding a troll here - hopefully I'm wrong, and we're just miscommunicating.

Whether you're correct or not, you're assuming that activists detailed in the cables are aligned with US interests. I suspect that the US keeps more of an eye on those against it's interests than those with.

I think you may have missed the point a little.

When they say the cables identify those at risk, the people they're talking about include (possibly peaceful) political activists within repressive regimes who may now be in severe danger. They're also talking about whistleblowers who are also now in danger, and will now be less forthcoming about reporting abuses going on within their perview.

According to the article, the full set of cables was released in a encrypted form in December 2010, and The Guardian released the password in a book in February 2011. I guess from that point of view, the cat was already out of the bag.

I guess to anyone who's directly interested in endangering the sources and/or identified parties put two and two together back then, so this may be of little impact from that aspect. Perhaps WikiLeaks was trying to give the impression that they're still in control before everyone else figures out the connection anyway?

BT already has in place a system called CleanFeed [wikipedia.org]. CleanFeed uses Deep Packet Inspection, so DNS changes won't affect it. Implementation is likely to be trivial - it costs next to zero to add an entry to a table. BT won't go out of their way to add entries to the their block list, but will likely comply with each court order as it's received. -- Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19

BT already has in place a system called CleanFeed. It already uses DPI, so DNS changes are moot. Implementation is likely to be trivial.

...court orders pavements(sidewalks) ripped up to prevent bank robbery.

No, they've paid for it - but now they outright own the backbone bandwidth rather than renting it (cf other high bandwidth users).

Peering ASNs are going to have a lot more difficulty forcing Google into a transit agreement than say Facebook simply because the in/out transfer ratio is closer to zero for Google than Facebook due to Googles backbone capacity.

Obviously, they've "paid for what they've paid for", but by having already spent the money (and doing it when fibre was cheap), they've now got a competitive advantage over those who were unprepared and now have to start paying. It means that Googles books stay the same whereas other high bandwidth users see a hike in variable operating costs.

For reference, they already peer vast quantities of traffic at IXs anyway : Google Peering Info

My point is they've already done the paying years ago - they don't pay per byte charges on the fibre they own.

As for 'pay to connect', their network is sufficiently large as to merit peering at IXs - IE minimal cost (routing hardware, maintenance, etc.). They can trade their unused fibre bandwidth for the ISP last mile bandwidth.

But they don't pay for all of the pipes... Remember all that Dark Fibre they bought up in 2007?

I remember thinking they're preparing for this sort of thing (in one form or another) - they're pretty good at anticipating trends. If they've got the backbone bandwidth to trade for last mile bandwidth they'll be able to operate at substantially lower cost than other high bandwidth users (read:Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter - prime competetors all).

While I wholeheartedly welcome the opportunity to improve some of the frankly stupid laws floating around at the moment, the pessimist in me wonders how this will be twisted by lobbying into some ridiculous new round of laws. I'm going to wait six months before I celebrate this.

Great - so when my wireless internet enabled skin display gets infected with spam, I'll have adverts for viagra appearing on my chest. Brilliant

So when the virtual particle pair is created at the event horizon, one is trapped stationary beyond the horizon, and the other escapes (becoming real).

In this experiment obviously the event horizon doesn't persist indefinitely, so when the horizon collapses, do the 'trapped' photons escape? and hence is there a time delayed double emission of the hawking radiation? Would this provide a testable signature?

Any physicists know?

Hope you don't mind me requoting some of my earlier comments :