OT: Net neutrality

Page 4 of 4  
On 7/19/2014 3:56 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

I don't consider Rush extremist. I consider him to have a reasonable view of reality.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:02:32 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:

For that matter, I don't consider MSNBC to be really extremist either. Wrong on a lot of important issues, but I wouldn't say extremist. Speaking of MSNBC, did you see what happened on that great news organization with their anchor and the shot down plane?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEDH2Z2_6Zw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<I have yet to see any internet company controlling what you can access.>
Maybe you weren't looking when many of the major ISPs decided they were going to drop their Usenet servers and it was tough nougies if you didn't like it. Yes, you could go elsewhere but it's clear a lot of people never sought out the alternatives. Many of the newsgroups I posted to withered and died after ISPs terminated Usenet service. And if that's not a pertinent enough example for you, there's this:
http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorrent-traffic-after-all/
<Comcast for months has denied blocking BitTorrent traffic, but new tests show that it takes aggressive filtering steps that AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Cablevision do not.>
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/20/2014 3:48 PM, Robert Green wrote:

I really don't care. BitTorrent is used mainly by a bunch of cowardly petty thieves hiding from the law. Fuck em!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 3:48:42 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

I think your association of cause and effect is dubious. IMO, newsgroups are less popular because they are old means of communicating, sharing, etc and today people are gravitating to other methods, eg twitter, facebook, etc. And as you freely admit, you can go elsewhere, with some choices being free, so I don't see it as such a big deal. What's worse? That or having some govt agency decide what they have to carry and what they don't? What's next? Telling cable companies that they have to carry Home Shopping Network and TCM?
And if that's not a

As usual, if you dig a bit deeper, what actually is going on is a bit more complicated. It looks like what Comcast was trying to do was limit BitTorrent traffic. They may have either intentionally or unintentionally actually blocked some of it. If they outright blocked it, I agree there should be rules against doing that. But if they are trying to allocate their bandwith in some reasonable way so that Bittorrent, which is essentially a haven for illegal pirates and which sucks up a lot of bandwith, doesn't consume more than a reasonable share, then that seems legitimate to me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How any sane Republican thinks Rush is helping the cause is beyond me. His Sarah Fluke character assassination backfired badly on him and now she's running for office.
Lately he's claiming that somehow, the Ukraine shoot-down was rigged by Obama to provide "cover" from the US border controversy.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/17/limbaugh-eerie-crash-of-malaysian-flight-is-an-opportunity-to-save-obama-from-border-crisis/
<<"I don't want to appear to be callous here, folks," he continued. "But you talk about an opportunity to abandon the bad Obama news at the border!" . . . "It's really eerie, why would it be shot down?" he asked. "Over Ukraine, it was shot down by a missile. This would lead one to believe that it is not an accident.">>
It's pretty clear to me that repeated exposure to Rush can rot your mind. It's certainly rotted his.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 4:11:16 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

Liar, liar, pants on fire. How about showing what he really said, in context, and include the fact that his comments were made as the event was unfolding:
RUSH: Holy cow, folks. Have you seen the news? A Malaysian Airlines flig ht has been shot down by a missile over Ukraine, at least according to an a dvisory to Ukraine's interior ministry. The Interfax News Agency -- which has nothing to do with fax machines. It's what the Soviets used to call the ir news agency, Interfax. You didn't know that, did you? Anyway, it's a Malaysian Airlines jet. You know, I've got the British Open on to the top monitor. I haven't had CNN on all day. What do you bet the y have broomed everything and are covering wall-to-wall the Malaysian Airli nes flight shot down by a missile?
I mean, you talk about... I don't want to appear to be callous here, folks, but you talk about an opportunity to abandon the Obama news at the border? And, no, I'm not suggesting anything other than how the media operates. Anyway, it's eerie. It is really eerie. A Malaysian airliner. It was on the way to Kuala Lumpur. Why would it be shot down? Over Ukraine? It was shot down by a missile. This would lead one to believe that it is not an ac cident. It carried 295 people, and obviously there are no survivors. "
It's obvious that Rush was only saying that this story would give the lamestream media the opportunity to take attention off Obama;s failures at the border. He wasn't suggesting that Obama shot it down, But, as it's turned out, it's actually put even more focus on Obama's failure as a leader.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green posted for all of us...
And I know how to SNIP

No, because it is economically unfeasible and throws electronic hash all over the spectrum.
--
Tekkie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| <I have yet to see any internet company controlling what you can access.> | | Maybe you weren't looking when many of the major ISPs decided they were | going to drop their Usenet servers and it was tough nougies if you didn't | like it. Yes, you could go elsewhere but it's clear a lot of people never | sought out the alternatives.
Perhaps a better example is AOL. They never actually blocked anyone, as far as I know, but they did their best to hide the fact that there was an Internet outside of AOL, and their strategy worked well. A number of companies would *love* to recapture the walled garden approach, either through restricted devices (phones and tablets) or by eliminating all options for Net neutrality.
This kind of thing is usually not done forcefully. Microsoft doesn't stop anyone from blocking tracking cookies as they travel online. Microsoft just hides the cookie settings behind a button marked "Advanced" and 99% of people never find it. Similarly, Mozilla now hides cookie and history settings unless one chooses to "use custom settings" under the privacy tab. No one has to be spied on as they travel online, but most people are just in no position to figure that out, so in the absence of regulation, spying is the norm. Apple doesn't stop you from putting whatever app you like on their iPhone. It's just that anything you don't buy at the Apple Store won't install. It's very unlikely that ISPs would ever block websites. (At least not starting out. They might just "drop support" later for "irrelevant" independent websites, as they drop Usenet support.) But if they can "pull an AOL" they don't need to block anything. The general public will end up in something like the Verizon Shopping Mall without even realizing they're missing anything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 5:41:28 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:

You'd have to be a real idiot not to know that there was an internet outside of AOL. And apparently most people figured it out, because AOL subscribers declined from a peak of 27 mil to 6 mil. That's how well the AOL strategy worked. It failed on it's own. Good grief.
A number of companies

Strawman alert! From what I see the ISPs are concerned with how to handle traffic that only a portion of their customer base use, but that sucks up huge amounts of bandwith. That is very legitimate.

And of course most of those people don't know what cookies are and don't care. I'm more concerned with the IRS targeting conservative groups for political purposes, are you?
Similarly, Mozilla now hides cookie and history

Finally some truth.

Bad analogy. The ISP were hosting that usenet service themselves, on their equipment, that they had to pay for. It was not an independent website.

Strawman!
Why is it that you libs always take something where 99.9% of it is a spectacular success, focus on the .1% that isn't, come up with all kinds of strawman scenarios, and argue for the govt to start running things? And yet you ignore the massive govt failures, where they proved they can't do the basic mission right, eg VA, Obmacare implementation, IRS.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly. That's what my link said:
http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2013/10/broadband-over-power-line.cfm
(except now that I am not coming from google they want me to create and account and log in. Uh huh.) Anyway, the protests from radio astronomers and ham radio operators surfaced as soon as the test sites were first deployed. Things only got worse as the test projects ramped up the number of participants. I remember it well because I was active in Comp.Home.Automation (and it was active, too) when they first deployed BPL, in Cinncinnati, if I recall correctly. X10 and other powerline automation control users were afraid BPL would step on their powerline signals (oddly enough, that *wasn't* one of its problems).
But these shortcomings were well known *way* before Michael Powell began pushing the technology as valid "competition" to wired broadband.
It's about as dumb as Justice Kagan voting on a 35 foot abortion buffer rule and obviously not knowing what 35 feet actually is. She thought the SC courtroom was 35 feet wide.
<<There was considerable debate on that. Kagan thought the buffer zone was about the size of the courtroom (actually, the courtroom is 82 feet by 91 feet).>> source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-justices-question-size-of-buffer-zones-around-mass-abortion-clinics/2014/01/15/834f21c4-7e02-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html
And these are the people who are supposed to be able to decide complex scientific and technical issues. Yeah.
--
Bobby G.




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 7:09:39 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

Yeah, better we should let the lib hippies decide the complex scientific and technical issues.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Robert Green:

Speaking as a lifelong fiscal-conservative-bordering-on-reactionary and a Republican at heart (but registered independent), the most damning statement about the Republican party I've heard is that it's agenda is mainly determined by talk show hosts.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:26:41 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Who exactly made this damning statement and what makes you think it's true? If the Republican party agenda is determined by talk show hosts like Rush who is the one who is being mentioned here, why is that Boehner is Speaker of the House, when Rush and similar conservative talk show hosts publicly disagree with him most of the time?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| >It's pretty clear to me that repeated exposure to Rush can rot your mind. | >It's certainly rotted his. | | Speaking as a lifelong fiscal-conservative-bordering-on-reactionary and | a Republican at heart (but registered independent), the most damning | statement about the Republican party I've heard is that it's agenda is | mainly determined by talk show hosts.
I think the reactionary element are only Republican by default. They're not expressing an agenda so much as fear. Fear of change. Fear of loss. Fear of issues that are not black/white. The Republican Party used to be the pro-business party, but with a sense of social duty and noblesse oblige. These days, noblesse oblige has been taken out of the equation. To the extent that either party is noble, the Democrats think we should legislate fairness and civility while the Republicans think those things come from strong leaders. Both sides have valid points.
What do the "loudmouth factions" of the current Republican Party stand for? They think one of the biggest problems in America today is that Barak Obama is not actually an American. That's not a political agenda. It's just red herring nonsense to avoid any reasonable discussion of issues. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are *in lieu of* agenda.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:14:02 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:

Really? Occupy Wall Street for example, is Republican? Code Pink? How about the folks at college campuses who won't let anyone they disagree with even speak on campus? Those are not reactionary? Or how about say Roseanne Barr:
"I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pa y back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million. And if they are unable to live on that amo unt of that amount then they should, you know, go to the reeducation camps and if that doesn't help, then being beheaded."
So, she must be a Republican too. Go figure.
>They're not expressing an agenda so much as fear. Fear of change. Fear

Yes, I do admit I'm more fearful now than I was back in the days of the Cold War. Fearful that we have a president who has totally abdicated his oath of office and duties. He's shown he's incapable of securing the border. He's shown that he's incapable of responding to the situation in Iraq. He lets ISIS take and drive around in US tanks and does nothing. He lets Putin make an ass of him in front of the world, invade sovereign countries, and now shoot down civilian airlines. OBama's response, off to another $32,000 a plate fund raiser and a weekend of playing golf. "Vladymir, if you keep this up, there will be consequences....." Good grief. Yet when we point this out, it's extremism? Bob Sheifer at CBS who's a dinosaur said last week that he believes the world we're currently in is more dangerous than the height of the Cold War. I agree. And the ship is without a captain.
Fear of issues that are not black/white. The Republican Party

And the Democratic party of JFK used to be pro-business, pro strong defense, pro America. JFK cut taxes, stood up to the Russians, and he didn't go on an around the world apology tour. JFK wouldn't recognize today's party. He's closer to Reagan than he would be to OBama. A party that's so intolerant, they drove the guy who was their candidate for VP a decade ago right out of the party.
These days, noblesse oblige has been taken out

Good grief. Republicans think fairness and civility come from strong leaders? Who the hell ever said that?

Nonsense. Strawman detected. Strawman rejected. That was just a small part of the opposition to OBama and I haven't heard it for many years , until just now, by you. It pretty much went away when Obama finally release d his birth certificate. What I have heard in the last couple of years is:
IRS VA Syria Iraq ISIS Benghazi Ukraine/Putin Obamacare America being flooded with illegals, border totally open
Why would anyone talk about birth certificates when we have so many real crises that Obama is totally mishandling? Mishandling so badly that even Democrats are openly calling him on it. The Republicans have major policy differences with Obama and how he's handling all of the above. Yet you libs prefer to just divert the conversation into the birth certificate or "you don't like Obama because he's black" ditch, apparently because you know you can't win on the issues.
That's not a political

Yes, I agree. Bringing up OBama's birth certificate is a red herring. How about just one of OBama's real crises? Let's say the IRS. If you Democrats are so much in favor of fairness, honesty, what do you say about that? Simple question, are you in favor of appointing an independent prosecutor? Yes or no. Or do you think that having a Democrat who donated the maximum amount permitted to OBama and the Democrats the last several years is the proper person to be leading the IRS investigation? You OK with OBama declaring that there is not a smidgeon of evidence of wrongdoing at the IRS? The same OBama who a year ago said he was outraged, wanted to find out what really went on at IRS, but now proclaims that there is no wrongdoing, *before* the DOJ investigation even began? No wrongdoing? Just the fact that Lerner took the fifth shows that something wrong was going on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green posted for all of us...
And I know how to SNIP

Sorry, I hadn't read your post when I blurted out my ignorance.
--
Tekkie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.