Math!

*part one*

(1.) 1011... 8+0+2+1 = 11

(2.) 101010... 32+8+2 = 42

(3.) 11111... 1+2+4+8+16 = 31

(4.) 10010... 16+2 = 18

*part two*

(1.) 31... 31-16=15-8=7-4=3-2=1... 11111

(2.) 51... 51-32=19-16=3-2=1... 110011

(3.) 7... 7-4=3-2=1... 0111

(4.) 103... 103-64=39-32=7-4=3-2=1... 1100111
*part three*
(A.) 56 kilbits/sec, divide by 8 = 7 kilobytes/sec. 100*1024=102400 kilobytes. 102400 divided by 7 = 14,628 seconds = 237 minutes = 3.95 hours.
(B.) 5 megabits/sec, divide by 8 = .625 megabytes/sec. multiplied by 1,000 = 625 megabytes/sec... 100 divided by 625 = .16*1,000 = 160 seconds

(C.)10 megabits/second, divide by 8 = 1.25 megabytes/sec. multiplied by 1,000 = 1,250 megabytes/sec... 100 divided by 1,250 = .08*1,000 = 80 seconds 

*part four*

(1.) 3 megabits(divided by 8) = .375 megabytes/sec...seconds in an hour(60*60=3600) 3600*.375 = 1350 divided by 60 = 22.5 per hour

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality can seem like a confusing issue, but I like to think of it simply; basically net neutrality has to do with whether the internet should be run like the phone companies or like cable companies. Phone companies, or telecommunication (open) networks, treat all data equally while cable companies, otherwise known as information (closed) networks, can give certain data preference depending on how much the customer pays or which channels they want. The main issue is of what consumers can view and how quickly based on which company is providing their internet service. As of now, all data is treated equally, whether it be a youtube video or a simple email, because of net neutrality. This is how the internet has always worked, but critics feel that because of new applications such as video and television online, it would be benefitial to provide consumers with a choice of giving such applications preference for better quality and speed of viewing. 

There are many supporters of net neutrality and many critics, and both sides include large and influential companies. Those in support of net neutrality include Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, librarians and many liberals. Such supporters feel that the internet has always worked as it is and there is no need to change it. Other arguments are that net neutrality prevents monopolies from forming and that ending net neutrality would harm both small sites and consumers. Those against net neutrality are AT&T, Sprint, libertarian groups and pro-free market groups. They believe that the internet needs to change as the services it provides (such as video) are changing and that such services should have a higher priority. Also, they feel that net neutrality prevents innovation and investment. 

In my opinion, net neutrality is definately a positive thing and I feel that it is crucial that the internet stays how it is now and always has been. The government says that the phone is a necessecary service and therefore it should be provided to everyone while the cable company is not a necessity and should be treated differently, as an "information" network. While the television is purely for entertainment, the internet is used for so much more in this day and age. In fact, I feel that the internet is becoming just as much of a necessity as the phone and it should therefore be provided to consumers as such. Also, one of the greatest things about the internet is that anyone can make a sight if they have a good idea and it can become popular and thriving, big companies do not have the upper hand in this regard. The internet has always worked so well and I believe that it would be a huge mistake to change it now. 

Cybersquatting

After reading all three articles, I feel that all in all, cybersquatting should be illegal. To me, there does not seem to be any upside in allowing some kinds of cypersquatting to be tolerated. Websites like whitehouse.org are just trying to exploit a person's typing error in order to gain popularity. It seems to me that if a website wants to gain viewers, they should have to do it by the strength of their content, and not by riding on the coattails of another more frequented website. Other kinds of cybersquatters, such as the creator of SteveJobs.com, are doing the same thing; exploiting someone or something else in order to gain, not popularity in this case, but profit. 

It is outrageous that people can make a website where their only contact information listed is a sequence of random numbers or letters or a meaningless word such as "meow", in the case of mymorganstanleyplatnum.com. I realize that it is extremely hard for anyone to regulate the internet, because it is so widespread across the globe. However, when people and sites are being taken advantage of because of a famous name or popular website, it should definately be against the law in America. The internet has become a huge part of our society, largely because anyone can access it, and I think that is great. But, because it has grown so large, it is irresponsible to let something like cybersquatting get out of hand and for the squatters themselves to go unpunished.