Conflicts and way to resolve them

The origin of conflicts;
Edward de Bono: The internal origin of conflicts is human natukre
Human nature is very complex and complicated and util now nto wholly investigated. Human nature includs all human caracterististics: good an bad, love and hate, peace fulnes and militancy and oll between.
Cultural- historical heirtage are languages, nations, religions and values. Boat: human nature and cultlural- historical heritage are or may be dofferent, coopetating, controversial and conflict.
Who is Edward de Bono?
After his initial education at St. Edward's College, Malta and Royal University of Malta, he gained Royal D. Phil in medicine De Bono is founder and director of Cognitive Research Trust in Cambirge as too founder of  Supranational Independent Thinking Organisation. Hes has written about twenti books and many-coloured articles on thinking, of conflicts and conflict resolution.

Edward de Bono
What is conflict?
Conflict is a clash of interests, values, acations or directions.Conflict refers to the existence of that clash. The word conflict is applicable from the instant that the calsh occurs. Even when we say that there is a potential conflict we are implying that there is alredy a conflict of directions even though a clash may not have occured.
Confliction
That is a new word.Its meaning is fairly obvious. Confliction is the process of setting ua, promotion, encouraging ore desigiting conflict. Note that confliction refers to the actual effort put into creating a conflict. It covers all those delibetate things which happen before the conflict is establiched. Confliction is meant to refer to a deliberate proces. It is the effort to establich a conflict. We do not have to be concerned here why anyone would want to establich a conflict.
Deconfliction
This is also a new word I am inventing (de Bono). De-confliction is even more i portant than confliction .In order for de-confliction to meke sense we need to have the word 'confliction'. De-confliction is the opposite of confliction. It rerers to the designing away or dissipation of the basis for the conflict. De-confliction does not refere to negotiation or bargaining or even to the resolution of conflicts. De-confliction is the effort rsequaired to evaporate a conflict. Just as confliction is the setting up of a conflict so de-contliction is the opposite process: demolition of the conflict.
Human thinking is information activity in that special environement that we call the brain. We do not yet know the detailed workongs of the brain but we do have a broad view of the type of intormation system that it is. The first stage of thinking is perception. It is in perception that the chaos of the external world is translated into symtols or words which can then be manipulated in the exellent second-stage system we have inventid (addaition: it is language - second stage of the work of the brain).
But perception itself depends directly on the way the brian works. Most of our thinking is language based. such language-based thinking sistems are also second-stage systems. We inherit words end over time our experuence  may allow new words to form. The rules of handling the words are laid down by grammar and usage. We are very  proud  of our language-based thinking system and we believe it to be rather wonderful ----which it is. It is the only game in town and  our culture is so dependent on language-based thinking that we cannot really conceive of anything else.
Conflicts arise becaause  people may have to interact in the same situation but they see the situation very different. Everyone is alwayas right. No one is ever right.

                                         
This means that within his own perce;tions a person may be right but in terms of wider perceptions this is not so and in terms of absolute perceptions it may never be so.

Conflict Causasus region 

There are a number of reasons why people may see the same situation differently. It is important to  note them, as understanding such differences is an essential part of conflict  resolutins.
There are differences based in chemical setting of the brain. If we are in a certain mood we may only be able to see things in a certain way.
There is the old story of the optimist who saw the glass as being half full of whiskey and the pessimist who stoutly maimtained hat it was half empty.

Conflict Balkan region

Modus: What can we do about mood? We can take note of  it and its effect on the available thinking, We can take note of  it and its effect on the setting and shoices of people. We cannot directly use chemicals other than the traditional ones.
What we can do abput mood? We can take note of itand its effect on  the avaible thinking.. We can try to change mood deliberately by change of setting and shoices of people. We cannot direclty use chemical other than the traditional ones. But we can use 'Six Thinking Hats'. The thinker metafhorically puts on one of these hats and then adopts the prescirbed role. The hats are:
White hat: neutral information, facats and figures without comments;
Black hat: negativ logical,why it won't work, why it can't be done, why it does not dit experience patterns;
Yellow hat: positive specalative, why it might work, what is hoped for,what the benefits might be;
Red hat: pure emotion without any need to explain of justify, a plain surfacint of current feeling on the matter,
Green hat: fertile, generative nad craative, new ideas, suggestions and provocations;
Blue hat: overview control hat to control the use of  others and also tu ant as an organizer of the thinking itself.
Thera are artofical moods. but, like the masks in a Kabuki play, may lead the real moods to follow.
I do not intend to discus here all the possible effects of mood on thinking and the  practical matters that arise. For example there is the difficulty of an offer made in a good mood and then ot followed trhough an a more sober mood.
Context  context is rather a broad word which covers the whole setting of the situation: direct, indirect, broad and most broad environment.
Limited view: This is mixture of myopia and parochialism. It means that someone simply cannot see beyond a certtain distance. "Limited view" is a real thing and not a matter of choise. Whotever is going to make sence is going to have to make sense within the limited view.
Local logic: At first sight this may seem very similar to the "limited view" concept but it is actuelly different, and different in an important way. With local logic  a thinker may actually have a very wide view. Nevertheless a certain action is chose because its makes sense in a very local scene. In ather words there is "local logic behind the action or choice. Note that the emphasis is on "locic" and not on "view".
Logic bubble:. When we disagree with what someone is doing we habe two basic choices. We can regard tha person as stupid/malevolent or we can regard that person as higly intelligent  bat acting in a bubble of perceptions and circimstances which dictate the action. In other words the person is acting higly intelligently within the locic bubble wthin which he finds hiimself.
There is considerable overčap between local logic and logic bubble and at timesthey may be identical. Logic bubble is always very personal and referes to a particular individual. Local logic is relative.
For example: Why is tihis being done? That question may have an answer in ocal logic.
Why is be coing this now? That question will have an answer in that person's logic ubble.
Universe differences are profoundly important and all great jumps in sciences come about through a shift in the undersoood universe of action.
Talking acros universes is even worse than tolking across Lsngauges. If talk Englich to a Japanese who does not unterstand you then there is no communication ----  stgat tgere us bi cinnzbucatuib, --with universes, if you are talking in one uneverse and the listener is listening in other universe they may be no real comprehension
A  universe is a set of circumstances and rules of action which determine how things behave in that universe....the universe determines the law of "nature" in that universe. In the underwater universe wood floats upwards, on the surface of the earth it drops downward.
The important thing with understanding universe changes is to treat each universe  separate and complete in itself. Then it comes  to have its own logic and its own consistency and it is possible to work within this  To make point- by-point comparsons and then to try to remember all these differences just adds up to confusions.
Comparisons can be made of fundamental points in order to shov up the differences. Then the new universe is understood around these fundamental points.
Teoretically an universe change is much more profound than a system  change. After all, there may be several systems within the same universe. In practical terms there is a spectrum which runs from basic universe  changes to system differences.
 To understand behavior, values and what may happen next, all actions have to be refered to the universe in which they are taking  place.
Difference of infromation is one of the major sources od differencw of perception and since it is techncalione of the wasiest tzpes  of differences  of  perception  and since it is  technicallz one of the easiest tzpes of difference to be p ut right, serious thought need bo be given to the vortues of secrecy.
Anyone who favors a mapping and designt approach to conflict thinking must favor disclosure , whereas anyone who favor the dialectic argument must favor secrecy.
This program of mine now seems to be the most widely used in the world for the direct teaching of thinking in schools. In Venezuela every schoolchild, by law, spends two hours a week on thinking skills.
The method is used in U.K , Ireland, Australija and New Zealand in different schools, I have set up pilot projects in Bulgaria, Mlaysia and Malta and have invitations to set up fruther projects.
Preliminarz results from Bulgaria show statisticallz significant increases in intelligence an  other measure attribute. Results form Canada, Australia and the U.S.A. also show measurable efeects.
Thinking as two stage process:
1st, Make the map
2bd, Use the map

Deep blue vs Karsarov

Starting the chess- mach Garry Kssparov vs american computer "Deep blue" 

One of chess- positions Kasparov vs Deep blue"

Mechanical computer in the past

THE LAW OF QUANT AND QUANTUM COMPUTER

WELCOME TO THE QUANTUM ERA

The beginning od the3. decade of the 21. century is starting the era of quant and quantum computer  and simultaneous the end of the era of classic computer based on chips and transistors, 

Welcome into the new era , where we need to forget everytheig we know cause end effect, reality, certanlity, and mch else besides This is, includ the future quantum computer, the different world, it has its own rules, rules of probability theat make no sense in our everyday world. 

Richard Feynman, the greatest phisicist of his genration, said of quantum theory: "It is impossible to explain it in any classical way.  T he same refers to the quantum and quantum computer.

Quantum theory  is much more than just bizarre, it is also without doubt the most amazing theory in existence. 

This is very complex theory.

Richard Feynman

David Deutsch, born i Haifa ( Israel), an Oxford phisicist and author  of "The Faabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes-- and Its Implicaations", said: "Our universe is just one of many, linked together by the astounding henomena of the quantum world. David Deutsch beleives tčhis multiverse view of raaliti could hold the future of copmputing. 

David Deutsch

A growing number of physicist, myself included, are convinced that thing we call 'the universe' - - namely space, with all the matter and energy it contains - is not the whoole of reality,  According to quantum tgheory - the deepest theory known to physics - our uneverse is only a tiny facet of a larger multiverse , a highly structured  continuum containing many uneverses.

Everything in our universe -- including you and me, every atom and every galaxy -- has counterparts in these other universes. Some counterparts are in the same places as they are in our universe, while others are in different places. Some have different shapes, or are arranged in different ways; some are so different that they are not worth calling counterparts. There are even universes in which a give object in our iniverse has no counterpart --including universes in which I was never born and you wrote this article instead.

Tthe way for keeping order is the quantum interference. Without the quantum interference, electrons would spiral into atomic nuclei, desstroying every atom literally in a flash. Solid matter would  be unstable, and the phenomena of biological evolution and human thought would be impossible. And as I shall explain, it is quantum interference that provides our evidence for the existence of the multiverse.
Through interference each particle in our universe can be affected by its counterparts in other universes. What we see as a single subatomic particle is really a sprawling transuniverse structure, spanning a large region of the multiverse. Although we cannot see the parts of this structure that are outside our iniverse, we can infer their presence from the results of experiments. Perhaps the most striking involve quantum computers -- devices that collaborate with nearby universes to perform useful computations.
How do they do that? While conventional, non-quantum computers perform calculations on fundamental pieces of informations called bits, which can take the values 0 ili 1, quantum compusters use objects called quantum bits, or qubits. A qubit can also either represent 0 or 1, but its value can vary from iniverse to universe.
Hence in the time it takes a conventional domputer to perform a given calculation, a quantum computer with its counsterparts in other universes can perform many such calculations. In particular, they can each perform different piecaes of a complex computation simultaneously. Using quantum interference, the computer in our iniverse can then combine its results with those of its counterparts, to arrive at the overall answer.
Not all types of computatuion are capable of being shared out among iniverses in this way. Within one universe we are free to shuffle information  about from place to place, and to perform whatever logical operations we like on it, but in the multiverse, things are not so convenient.
Quantum computers, nevertheless, offer fundamentallz new capabilities, including absolutely secaure methods of communication, ways of breaking the best existing codes and seemingly miraculous algorithms for solving mathematical problems that are currently intractable.
For instancae, "Deep Blue", IBM's chess-playing supercomputer had examined about 200 million chess positions per second by sharing the work amnog its 256 processors, each of which examined almost one million positions per second..
Quantum computer, running a search algorithm discovered by Lov Grover of AT&T's Bell Laboratiories in New Jersey could autclass Deep Blue by sharing the work among meny unererses. Grover proved that if there were time to searach N items using a conventional computer in one universe, his algorithm could exploit the multivrse to search a total of N2 items in the same time. Thus a single quantum mprocessor, with the same clock rate as one of Deep Blue's processors could examine a trillion chess  positions in one seacond --- and in two seconds it could examine four trillion, in three seconds nine trillion, and so on.
Research groups worldwide are now racing to build the first practical quantum computer. The contemporary level of development is modest and has the capacity of only a handful of qubits each, but they can alredy demonstrate modes of  computation that no existing computer can march.
But to explain exactly how they will work, some form of multiple-universe language  is unavoidable. Thus quantum computers provide irresistible evidence that the multiverse is real. One especially convincing argument is provided by quantum algorithms --- even more  powerful than Grover's ---which calculate more intermediate results in the course of an single computatuon than the are atoms in the visible universe.
When a quantum computer delivers the output of such a computation, we shall know that those intermediate results must have been computed somewhere, because they were needed to procuce the right answer, So I  (David Deutsch)) issue this challenge to those who still cling to a single- universe world view: if the universe we see around us is all there is, where are quantum computations performed?
One major school of quantum theory posits a multiiplicity of universes; but what does that imply about the reality we live in? A simple experiment, familiar to every student of phisics, involves light passing through slits in a barrier; its results, accaording to Oxford physicist Deutsch, lead inevitably to the idea that there are countless universess parallel to our own, through which some of   the light must pass. This "many worlds" interpretation of quantum theory has gained advocates in recent years, and Deutsch argues that it is time for scaientists to face the full implications of this idea. After all, the entire point of science is to help us understand the world we live in.
Deutsch argues that quantum computatuin, a discipline in which he is a pioneering thinker, has the potential for building computers that draw on their counterparts in parallel universes; this could amde artificial intellinence a reality. Likewise, time travel into both the future and the past should be possible, though not in quite the form envisioned by science fiction writers; the trips would almost bi one-way, and they would likely take the travelers into different worlds.
Parallel universes are no longer a figment of our imagination. They are so real that we can reach and touch them, and even use them to change our world.Why beleive in something so extraordinary? Because it can explain one of the greatest mysteries of modern science = why the world of atoms behaves so very differently from the every world of trees and tables.

The theory that describes atoms and their constituents is quantum mechanics. It is hugely successful. It has led to computers, lasers and nuclear reactors, and it tells ua why the Sun shines and why the ground beneath our feet is solid. But quantum theory also tells uas something very disturbing about atoms and their like: They can be in many placaes. This is not just a crazy theory- it has observable consequnces: Interfering with the multiverse.
The many worlds interpretation is one way to do it. This idea was proposed by Princeton graduate student Hugh Everett in 1957. Acacording to many worlds, quantum theory doesn't just apply to atoms, says Deutsch. But, if the tables can be in many places at once, the world of tables is exactly the same as the world of atoms. Right. But, nobody has ever seen such a schizoprenic table. So what gives?

Hugh Evertt

The idea is that if you observe a table that is in two places an once, there are also two versions of you-one that sees the table in one place and one that sees it in another place.
The consequences are remarkable. A universe must exist for every phisical possibility, There are Earts where the Nazis prevailed in the Second World War, where Marilyn Monroe married Einstein, and where the dinosaurs survived and evolved into intelligent beings who read New Scientist
That all seems inexplicable and impossible but in the theory and law of quantum mechanic is all possible. We are going there.
However, many worlds is not the only interpretation of quantum theory. Physicists can chose between half a dozen interpretaions, all of which predict identical outcomes for all conceivable experiments.
Deutsch dismisses them all. "Some are gibberish, like Copenhagen interpretation." he says- and the rest are just variations on the many worlda theme.
For example, accoridng to the Copenhaben interpretation, tha act of observing is that this only requires a large-scale objects such as a particle detectors. For others it means an interactoon with some kind of  conscious being, But, where is this Being?.
Worse still, says Deutsch, is that in this type of interpretation you have to abandom the idea of rrality. Before observationatha atom doesn't have a real position. Todeutsch the whole thing is mysticism-throwing up our hands and saying the are some things we are not allowed to ask
Some interpretations do try to give the microscopic world raality, but they are all disguised versions of the many worlds idea, says Deutsch. "They proponents have fallen over backwards to talk about the many worlds in a way that makes it appear as if they are not".
In this category, Deutsch includes David Bohm's "pilot-wave" interpretation. Bohm's idea is that a quantum wave guides particles along their trajectories. Then the idea is that a quantum wave guide particles along their trajectories.Then the strange shape of the pilot wave can bi used to explain all the odd quantum behaviours, such an interference patterns. In effect, says Deutsch, Bohm's single universe occupies one groove in an immensely complicated multi-dimensional wave function. Thus ,quantum is more and more bizarre.

David Bohm

The question that pilot-wave theorists must address is: whati are the unoccupied grooves?" says Deutsch. "It is no good saying they are merily theoretical and do not exist physically, for they continually jostle each other and the occupied groove, affecting its trajectory. What's really being talked about here is parallel universes. Pilot-wave theories are parallel- universe theories in a state of chronic denial.
Back and forth
Another disguised many world theory, says Deutsch, is John Cramer's "tranactional" interpretation in which information passes backwards and forwards through time. When you measure the position of an atom, it sends a message back to its earlier self to change its trajectory accordingly.

John Cramer

The capability of quantum demonstrates the power of the future quantum computer.
As the system gets more complicated, the number of messages explodes. Soon, says Deutsch, it becomes vastly greater then the mumber of paticles in the Universe. The full quantum evolution of a system is big as the Universe consists of an exponentially large number of classical processes, each of which contains the information to describe a whole iniverse. So Cramer's idea forces the multiverse on you, says Deutsch.
So do other interpretations, according to Deutsch. Quantum teory leaves no doubt that other universes exist in exactly the same sense that the single Universe that we see exists," he says. This is not a matter of Interpretation. It is a logical cnosequence of quantum theory."
A much more legitimate objection is that many worlds is vague and has no firm mathematical basis. Proponents talk of a multiverse that is like a stack of parallel universes. The critics point out that it cannot be that simple quantum phenomena occur precisely because the universes interact. "What is needed is a precise mathematical model of the multiverse," says Deutsch. And now he's made one and is going counter himself.
Many physicists opoosit to Deutsch. They say, the key to Deutsch's model sounds peculiar. He treats sthe multiverse as if it were a quantum computer. Quantum computers exploit the strangeness of quantum systems-their ability to be in many states at once-to do certain kinds of calculation at ludcrously high speed For exasmple, sthey could quickly search huge datavas4es that would take an ordinary computer the llfetima of the Universe.
In 1985, Deutsch proved that such a machine can simulate any conceivable  quantum system, and that includes the Universe itself. So to work out the basic structure of the multiverse, all you need to do is analyse a general quantum calculation. "The set of all programs that can be run on a quantum compuster  includes programs that would simulate the multiverse," says Deutsch. "Do we don't have to include any details of stars and galaxies in the real Universe, we dan just analyse quantum compusters and look an how information flows inside them."
If information could flow freely from one part of the muliverse to another, we'd live in a chaotic world where all possibilities would overlap. We reali would see two tables at once, and worse, everything imaginable would be happening everywehere at the same time.
Deutsch found that, almost all the time, information flows only within small pieces of the quantum calculation, and not in between those pieces. These pieces, he says, are separate universes. They feel separate and autonomous because all the informations we receive through our senses has come from within one universe. As Oxfprd pholosopher Michael Olckwood put it, "We cannot look sideways, through the multiverse, ani more than we can look into the future."
Sometimes universes in Deutsch's model peel apart only locally and fleetingly, and then slap back together again. Tihs is the cause of quantum inerference, wahich is at the root of everything from the two-slit expedriment to the basic structuer of atoms.
Other physicists are still digesting what Deutsch has to say. Anton Zeilinger of the University  of Vienna remains unvonvinced. "The multiverse interpretation is not the only possible one, and it is not even the simplest ,", he says. Zeilinger instead uses information theory to come to very different conclusions. He thinks that quantum theory comes from limits on the information we get out of measurements.
Why are phisicists reluctant to accept many worlds? Deutsch blames logical positivism, the idea that science should concern itself only with objedts that can be observed. In the early 20th century, some logical positivists even denied the existence of atoms-until the evidence became overwhelming.
The evidence for the multiverse, according to Deutsch, is equally overwhelming, "Admittedly, it's indirect," he says. "But then, we can detect pterodactyls and quarks only indirectly too. The evidence that other universes exist is at least as strong as the evidence for pterodactyls or quarks,
Perhaps sthe sceptics will  be convinced by ap practical demonstration of the multiverses. And Deutsch thinks he knows how, By buildin a quantum computer, he says, we can reach out and mould the multivaerse. But the constuction of the quantum computer shall happen just in the beginning of third decade of this century.
"One day, a quantum computer will be built which does more simultaneous calculations than there are particles in the Universe, says Deutsch. Since the Universe as we see it lacks the computational resources to do the calculations, where are they being done?" It can be in other universes, he says. "Quantum computers sharae information with huge numbers of versions of themselves throughout the multiverses.It means that the capability and capacity of quantum computers shall be endless.
Imagine that you have a quantum PC and you set it a problem. What happens is that a huge mumber of versions of your PC split off from this Universe into their own separate, local universes, and work on parallel strands of the problem. A split second later, the pocket universes recombine into one, and those strands are pulled together to provide the answer that pops up on oun screen. Quantum computers are the first machines humans have ever built to exploit the multiverse directly," says Deutsch.
Aat the moment, even the biggest quantum computers can only work their magic on about 6 bits of information, which in Deutsch's view means they exploit  copies of themselves in 26 universes- that's just 64 of them.
Because the computational feats of  such computers are puny, people can chose to ignore the multiverses. "But something will happen when the number of parallel salculations becommes very large," says Deutsch. "If the number is 64, people can shut their eyes but if it's 1064, they will no longer be able to pretend."
What would it mean for fou and me to know there are inconceivably man yours and mes living out all possible histories? Surely, there is no point in making any choices for the better if all possible outcomes happen? We might as well stay in bed or commit suicide.










2

WHERE IS THE INTERNET GOING?

 The Questions: Where is going the Internet? Where is now the Internet? The
answer:
Internet is now in the centre of polemics between the big actors on the future of the global net. The creator of Internet - United states have started the ideao to Internet reform.
Earlier emerged ideas on an new Internet. But such ideas are soon drived back because from the existing techniques: elecstrons, chips and transistors is not possible to form another global net eycept th txisting.
The first conference on the Internet reform arranged Unated States and Great Britain named "London Conference on Syberspace" in London 1-2. November 2011.
To the conference partidipated ca. 60 states, including Russia, India, Japan, Germany, France and other states of Europe and Asia, eycept Chna.
The conference demonstrated that soon all counties, especially the big actors wich the reform of Internet. And this ist till now the only one result or the only one consensus of the participiants an not participiants of conference such as China.

American continent connected.

The statement of United States:

At the London Conference only the United States, as the starter of the reform, have presented its concept of with main characteristics. The concept is based at following points:

1. Not-divisible Internet

2, Freedom of Internet

3. Security of Internet

To this points are addaed the next:

4. Respecting of human rights

5. Protection of authorship and intellectual property
6. Fight against internet crime.

For sustainable Internet and the preventing the fragmentation, the U.S. statement is forecasting the etablishing of Global Internet Governance Forum. The Forim would be formed based at Global Consensus and would be made up of three determinating Factors;
1. Representatives of Goverments (Political sector)
2. Representatives of Economics (Privat sector)
3. Representatives of  Civilians (Users sector).

United States an United Kingdom have started a wide international action to ataain te Global Consensus ant to form the World Internet Forum The primary is to form the consensus and the responcible behaviour of all actors to create the fixed "rules of road" for preservation the peace and the stability (U.S. and U.K. Cooperation in Cyberspace/IIpDigital/http://iiiiiipdigital.usembasa.gov/teyttrans/20011/052011).

The statement of Russia and China
Russia and China demand the state control of Internet - the suverereignty in Cyberspace. At conference of Internationa Telecommunication Union, Russia advocated that "Cybersuvereignty is the Extending of Statesuvereignty in Cyberspace ... the member states must have rights to manage Internet within their own territories as to assign Internet domains" (http://www.dw.de).

Their of Internet future Russia an  China present at two wazs. One waz is going over ITU. Russia demands: the Internet management must bi tsaken away from multy- and transnational instances as it is International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and given to the ITU. The same demands China.
The second way of Russia and Cina is going over the United Nations. Russia nad Cina would be win the right for award of domains within their territories, Thus, China and Russia bring into the reform of Insternet United Nations too. For somebody it can bi a good solution, but ongoing it makes an additional obstacle. The obstacle is inefficiency and slownes of the U.N. within methods and ways solutions international questions and problem. According their structue The U:N: are at least capable for care and solution such megadynamic phenomen as it is the Internet. The main problem is that the Internet moves and develops so quick that evry agrement would be aut of date as soon as it bi attained..

The boath reform concepts and demands: Uniter States at one and Russia and Cina at the other side are in fact the result of fear from the supermedium Internet, in particular, from mobile Internet..
The "Arabic spring" named too "Digital earthquake" (knocking dowan dictatorships in Tunis, Egypt and Libya), the phenomen "Vikileaks" ect. have presented enormous power and the double sharacter of this edium. Rapid technoogical development make sstronger the power, especialy of individual users and cimultaneous decrease the power of states and holders of  political power.

Autocratic and despoting regimes fear of their existence and democratic world for their maintaince the digital infrasstsructure ( hackers,obstructions).

The concept of the ITU
The United Staates and allies have presented on outline for Internet reform, Russia and China only sugestions. Opposit to them, ITU have developed the comoete project for the feform an management of Internet in the future. The ITU project ist presented at the World Conference on International Communications in Dubai (UAE) 03.12.20 12.

ITU is tshe first Internationa  organisation at all (etablished 1850). ITU has the gratest aspirations for Internet regulation and manegement. The ITU project is very close to thr statements of Cina and Russia as to more than 3/I4 states of tshe world. The ITU project "International Telecommunications Regulations" (ITR) suport 178 states. In the centre of Regulation is the development of "Information Society". The main document is the Declaration of the Principles with tree chaptere and 67 worthy  points. The declaration is adopted in Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005 at the Conferenc in Dubai (UAR).

The Regulation includs all media.ITu presents the pose that its international competence is the regulation of all international standards and lowamaking. But, the content of the Regulation is far exceeding autentic competences and spreads over all informations and communications resources and valuable standards of human communications. This shows the basic Declaration of  Secretary General ITU on Cybersecurity and Climaate Changes
United States and allies blockade fragmentation and nationalisation of Internet
The ITU plan to asume the regulation and managment of Internet have supported 178 states including China and Russia. Baut, for United States and allies is it unacceptable.
The main negative particles of the ITU plan are:
- 1. The project predict the transfer of Internet menagement into the competence of states
- 2. The state suvereignty woult permit all kind of state repression and warlike steps as are: obstructions,      content control, Intsernets blockades (see: Internet Governance Project/http://www.internetgovernance.org).
- 3.The ITU project, especially the parth "International Telecommunications Regulation (ITR) is an insolvable problef for Internet, because the project dose not distinguish the regulation classic Telecommunications from communications in cyberspace.
- 4 ITU has not the competences and standards for cyberspace regulation and management..

Who needs and why the reform of Internet?
From the technological and human standpoint - the standpoint about 2,5 Billions users, Internet is till today the most exellent medium, which is ongoing developing.
Internet is operating at its technological standards and accoplish' needs and wishes of users. The question: who needs and why the Internet reform?
 The straight answer: The Internet reform demands the political factor. And the 'problem' Internet appeared within the political control of communication resources an floiws of informations and knowledges.
Th problem is the control impossibility this one supermedium as the virtual cyberspace.
Why the political problem? There are two answers: First, because the political factor is the first time confronted with a medium who is slipping out or has already slipped out of constrol  of power structures. Second,, because, the traditional power structures and states havae inherited promordial tradition of control and monopoly over human communications. This structures attempt to extend theirs domination and to prevent Internet to become independent.

On the other side, Internet is based at technological patterns, technological ethics, wishes and needs of users.
Although the Internet concept is  proposed by Unitde Stated and allies and is based at valuable komponents (consistency, freedom and security), the way of the reform is not realistic because also formaly attained global consensus of the reform would be practical unrealizable.

Global consensus is not possible nor within the globalisation neither within the opposit process of differentioation and confrontation. The globalisation is being carrying out in cyberspace, but simultaneous diversificatin too. However, developing of Internet and Mobile Internet, as the leading techological globalizators within  users, followed differentiation of wide proportions, starting from  individualisation to more complex  socjal structures.
The process of  dofferentiation  is being  exatending to the level of controntation of simple structures (individuals) to most complex structures: nations, states, religious, ideologies.

The nationaliyation of Internet is not possoble becouse the Internet is technological independent

The nationalization ist the opposit concept to the Global consensus.The nationalizstion means the fragmentation of Internet based on state suvereignty within own territories. Oposition by United States and allies is marginal. The main obstacle  to the concept are powerfull and rapid even more powerfull technologies, who dictate  the global character of the cyberspace and the access to Internet. This obstacles do not permit the fragmentation of cyberspace according to political criterions. Competent for determination cyberspace are only technological standards.

                                  Users give strong resisstence to nationalihation of Internet
The strong resistanceto the fragmentation of cyberspace  is being coming from users of Internet. The users structures, technoligical and systematic educated, operate according technological patterns. One of the ptterns is the technological neutrality. The neutrality offer to all users the equal possibilities ad equal communication suvereingnty as it had announced Jean d'Arsy before three decades (1983): "The resources  are in our hands. We do not more tu ask nobody".
Technological equipped with the Mobile Internet, the individual structure of users created "Digital Earthquake" as "Arabic Spring". The phenomen "Arabic Spring" has demonstrated the all powerlessness of political factors and powerlessness even of the most extreme diktatorshiipis, who have had in their hands the all powerlevers and powertools for repression and forces and the all classic media for frightening and manipulation.

From the presented standpoints, the future of Internet is traced. It is the technological independence. So, the analysis of the current circumstances  and disposition of power permits appointment of orderlist of facators who will fix the future od Internet:
- First, media technologies
- Second, users
- Third, holder of political power - global actors.

The user is object of development of  media technologies

The big actors: What is going on?! 

Strengthen of computers

Regular strenthen of computers starte 1971. with development of nanotechnoloy. That is the reduction  of chip and transistor dimension and increasindthe number of transistors in one chip.
The structure of Intel pentium chip1971. included10.0 micrometerwith 2300 transistors.

Intel Pentium 284 included 1982. the Chipstructure of 1,5 Micrometer wirh 100 000 Transistors.

Intel Pentium included  1983. the Chip structure of  0,8 Micrometer with 3 000 000 Transistors.

Intel Petium 4 incladed 2000. the Chipstructure of  of  0,18 Micrometer with 42 000 000 Transistors.

Intel Pentium included 2010. the Chipstructure of only 0, 01  Micrometer  with improbable three Miliard Transistors.

The current Computer Technology is going away. In the Year 2020. Intel Pentium  shall have the Chip of nearly zero scope: 0,001 Micrometer but with incrsedible cca.two Hundred Billions Transistors. What follows after?Near the end we wont to:ask: what is the  transistor?
Transistor is a device that regulates current or voltage flow and acats as a switdh or gate for electronic signals. Transistor consists of three layers of semiconducter material , each capable of carrying and current. The semiconductor material is given special properties by a chemical process called doping.

First transistor 1947. : The biggest invention of 20th century


Scope of transistors from 1971. to 2016. : 10,000 - 0,1 nanometers.

The "New media"

The name "New Media" include emergence of digital Media and they Webconnection. Internet and Mobile Phone created the Compression of Space and Time. We can momentarily cross planetary distances.
The New Media
- compress geographical Space
- compress Time and Speed of Communication
- expand Quantity of Communication
- make possible Interactivity.

Digital, electronical and mass media

Digital Media are opposite to analogous Media. Lat. "digitus" (finger) is fonded on binary system "0" and "1" who make possible creation, presentation and exchange Data and  Informations without Quality damage.
Digitalisation determine digital Media as digital Convergence of Art, Science, Technology and Business for human Expression, Communication, social Interaction and Education. 

Elektronical Media include Media who use electrical and electromechanical enertz to send and receive messages.
Cabel Transmission:
- Telegraph (1832)
- Faximil (1861)
- Telephone (1877)
- Coacssial Cabel (1962)
- Optic Cabel (1970)
Wiresess Transmission:
- Radio (1920)
- Satelit (1958)
- Optic Disc (1960)

Telephone, Internet and Mobile internet are the individual Media. Mobile internet is the Medium of the 21. century and probable long term Medium of the future for Individual and other Communication within general Connection and Interrelationship started from singl Person ,Ffamily, local Community and farther to the global coverage.

Mass or Classic Media  are Press, Tadio  and Television and the other performed shapes of printing and audio-visual Media:Books, printed Supplies, Illustrations, Movies and so on.
Mass or classic Media characterized th 20. Century. They are one way linear Media with Messages and Contents directed from single Source to Massauditorium.