I second this.  cbeast has no argument and his behavior here demonstrates that he doesn't know how to compose an argument.

I'm adding him to my ignore list since his comments contribute little value to anyone, so I'd prefer not to be annoyed by them.

Nope, not my argument at all. See, you can't even read, let alone compose an argument.

Last time I checked hamas isn't a race. Neither is islam.

You don't have an argument. When you do, I'll respond to it.

+1 

Too bad you screwed up a pretty good start with bigotry and failure to understand what affirmative action is.   Anita may be unqualified but affirmative action did not get her there, the voters did.  She was elected not elevated by a misguided law. 

Incorrect. Hamas wishes to exterminate the jews. It's always been about jihad for islam.

Heh I don't think he will get it. I actually see this happen all the time. People make an assumption they think is fact but no one really conceded to that and then they draw conclusions based on it.

cbeast assumes that because we haven't had something in the past, we can't have it in the future. He thinks such an assumption is fact when in reality it's completely wrong. Anything new, any political system, philosophy, or basic goods or services, ANYTHING you want to pick that we have to today, we can point to a time in the past when they were just a "crazy" theory. So not only is he making the mistake to think I conceded to his assumption, but the assumption is false.

Saying a market regulated strictly by consumption i.e. a free market is "Utter nonsense!" because we haven't had a pure macro economic example yet is fallacious precisely because the fact that haven't had something yet is irrelevant.

Now this is no way means that the counter argument of it being possible is automatically true, it just means it's not false for that reason. We can then look at micro examples and see if we can detect elements of such markets on a smaller scale to get an idea of whether or not it could be possible. And anyone who honestly examines the world can find plenty of examples in their own personal life where they are a participant in a market that is regulated strictly by consumption (such as dating, buying bread..) which I'd argue is a very good indicator that it is possible on a macro level as well.

But of course all of this is above his head so what I'm doing here is really talking to everyone who is interested and can understand this.

Before this can be answered, you need to define the question properly.

"How do we deal with an internet blackout?"

How would you define 'dealing' in this context, and what do you define as 'internet' and more specifically, what do you define as 'an internet blackout'.

We need precise questions to be able to answer them, or else we need to make assumptions that may be quite different from what you originally had in mind.

The reason you should define it more clearly is that 'The Internet' itself is designed especially for the purpose of never 'blacking out'. Redundant routes is what ensures this, and even if a country has shut down their internet, access could be possible through satellite.

And in a situation where a mesh net is used, the state could have special police with equipment searching for and punishing participants in such a network.