>>53

I didn't make any decisions, but I did have problems with technical aspects of what his youtube guests were saying i.e. they were wrong. He asked me for correction, he said my correction would be broadcast, I gave correction, and as far as I know (I could not bear to listen to the whole thing) it was never broadcast. My technical issues were

(1) they have no idea what they're talking about with EMP, it's not a threat in the way they describe for physics reasons, and

(2) everyone's talking about Musk's company SpaceX as possibly giving rocket tech to NK, but what about Bezos' company Blue Origin ? Why is that never considered? And they didn't mention it on the show either, even when I questioned that.

So at the least he went and did a rather bad podcast and mentioned our board on it, and we never were consulted about the association. That's my view on it.

>>615

Looks like this was 2010, Obama's second year in office.

How did it change from the 2009 guidance and from guidance before that? Seems to prevent commanders from locking down any aspect of internet service on a longterm basis, does this give commanders less authority to protect information than they had prior?