Doubtful. I like it well done. Do you?

_________________
Tuor: Stuff is our resident, hot mess, alcoholic.
Senel: Stuff is the patron saint of getting shitfaced. You replaced your organs with an engine that runs solely on alcohol.
RIP Lucky. I love you so much.

Medium is fine for me; it doesn't have to be brown all the way through as long as they cook it at a high enough temp to kill off the debilitating diseases. I've already had all the curable ones.

_________________

I prefer medium -rare, cause I can always ask them to cook it some more if I don't like it, but I can't tell them to uncook it

_________________

I don't think you got me right there. I believe wikileaks should stay on and that there's certainly nothing illegal with what they'd done. I just said that, government control of the internet would be bad, as you suggest, as they would likely try to shut down such a site. Thus, no government control, just setting the standards and legal limits.


Except for the fact that it is the ISP who make their own policies and terms of use. So they are their own boss in that regard. And seeing how CEOs of companies that went bankrupt and needed bailouts are their own bosses as to how much bonuses they get, and giving themselves great "performance bonuses" for running their company to the ground, it goes to show you being your own boss is not healthy, in any business sector.


Ah yes, competition. The only problem with that thing is, it's a domino effect. One company starts to violate the laws and regulations and starts to get extra profits and increasing their sales, that hits the competition, so most competition will end up doing the same thing just to stay on the market. Such things happen, and it's unfortunate that it works this way. But it often does. If one company starts bending the rules and getting exceptional benefits from it, many others will surely follow eventually. That's the problem with for-profit organisations.
So no, one day there might be no ISP that doesn't try to screw you over.


It's neither news worthy nor even significant in any way. So you're saying the news stations put such crap on the air cause they have to fill in their air time with something? That's not a good sign to begin with. And no, making fun of it jokingly is not a problem. There is one case in that vid of a radio host taking it seriously, however. Which is ridiculous, and says a lot about the radio host.
Also, I like one of the comment statements: "There's nothing more American than exercising your right of freedom to eat your friggin burger whatever way you goddamn please."

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

if the internet is not neutral in its conveyance by law, companies can decide how to control the total sum of content that people using their internet service, dividing what types or locations of websites are allowed by price

in the same way that a private organization can control what websites people go to when using their physical property, i.e. computers owned by a certain group, so too, if net neutrality is displaced, can a private organization dictate what people are allowed to experience on the internet. Rather than paying a lump sum for merely the rate of data processed by YOUR computer, if the internet is legally allowed to be divided into tiers (a non-neutral system of conveyance), there is an easy to recognize incentive for companies to divide up what web sites to which their customers are allowed to go.

instead of getting the internet, the whole internet, for whatever single price a month, if net neutrality is removed, an ISP could have the authority to give people access to individual groups of websites for more money, giving you a certain price for a certain speed for just going to say Facebook and social sites on one tier, and youtube and google's websites for another tier, and news sites for another, wikipedia and the entire way wiki sites work, five bucks here, five bucks there, etc.

What net neutrality means is that the whole internet is available to us now for one price. Removing that means that we would potentially pay different amounts of money, which means that depending on how wealthy you are, you would have more access or less access to the information the internet provides, rather than the whole internet being available all the time.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

BR, that's like, the worst argument ever.

The issue with an ISP giving "Pay Per View" access to specific sites is that it is already against the law to do that. They would be charging you for someone else's service. That's something that people can sue for.

For example, Crunchyroll.com gives access to much of their content for free but with commercials thrown in at intervals. You can purchase a subscription that allows you to remove the advertisements and access more content than is available for free. If Comcast started saying "Hey, Crunchy Roll is getting a lot of hits, let's charge people more to access it!" If they do, Crunchy Roll can sue them for any money Comcast already made off access to their website as well as possible damages or anything else they can think of (within reason), and they would have the law on their side.

If you need additional laws to make something neutral, then it must not be neutral in the first place. So either you admit that the current system is neutral and needs no additional measures, or you make the claim that it is not neutral now and cite actual examples. No more of this "If we don't have Neutrality then this could happen."

_________________

i'm in texas right now, away from my personal computer. i'm not going to refute your arguments very well. i'm just describing the situation as i understand it.

i agree with you on one point:

we have net neutrality right now. It is in place. By passing any bills, the bills would be pushing the removal of this concept.

there are no additional laws to make the internet neutral. we have net neutrality right now. it is in place right now. it needs no additional measures.

there are bills being fostered in the legislature of the united states that aggressively are trying to remove this neutral system for the benefit of businesses in control of delivering the internet to consumers.

by abolishing net neutrality, the position of individual sites in relationship to their server would be redefined according to the server's placement of those sites into a tier of content defined by ISPs, in effect reversing the law you are describing that is presumably in place as you speak of it.

the content tiers would be likened to the tiers of cable television, who do not get sued regularly by the people who run the content of the individual channels on the various tiers of cable.

i am not making arguments saying that if we DON'T GET neutrality, this will happen, i am saying WE ARE NEUTRAL, and IF THAT NEUTRALITY IS REMOVED, then the consequences i am discussing are the consequences of making it possible for an ISP to control the direction of the flow of content that a user experiences when they connect to that ISP's version of the internet in a non-neutral system (One we currently do not have [because our system of internet conveyance is neutral {we have net neutrality}]).

let me repeat myself in case my idea was not understood the first couple times I discussed this idea in this thread and previous threads:

our system is neutral, and thus already has net neutrality. we have net neutrality.

we have net neutrality, and we do not want to lose it. no additional measures should be added to our current system, because it is neutral. the united states already has net neutrality.

have i made myself even the faintest bit clearer, ruffdraft? i sure hope so. we have net neutrality already. we have net neutrality, and should keep it.

we have net neutrality.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

once more: we have net neutrality currently. the phrase was created to describe the current system of internet conveyance by ISPs. the united states is an active user of net neutrality.

we have net neutrality, and we would like to keep it that way, so the internet is maintained in the way it is currently set up.

we have.

net neutrality. <--this is something the USA currently has

^---this is also something the USA currently has

net neutrality is how we describe the way companies now cannot restrict your ability to go to any website. how we CURRENTLY USE the internet.

net neutrality. that is what it is.

unless valhallen wants to correct or amend anything, i'm almost done here (we have net neutrality, RuffDraft).

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

it is not a vast conspiracy engineered by socialists, btw. net neutrality that is, the system we use to describe how companies are at present (which means right now) not allowed to change the internet (the one i am using to type this to you).

we have net neutrality.

am i clear? are we clear? do you understand yet?

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

i feel like my point isn't emphasized enough here, is why i am emphasizing it, my point (emphasizing).

net neutrality is something we currently have. it is not something we are not using. we are using it right now. Net Neutrality.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

Net Neutrality!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

^-- NOTICE IN THE DEFINITION! NO ISP OR GOVERNMENT

that means the system we are using right now can be defined as Net Neutral

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

it's like i'm talking to a wall here.

Do you understand what Net Neutrality means yet?

Perhaps you disagree with this idea because it's my idea and somehow my perspective is skewed in this matter!

Fair enough! If you disagree with my wikipedia (fairly objective as far as a lot of sources go, NO?????) definition: COULD YOU PROVIDE ME WITH A COUNTER DEFINITION THAT IS WIDELY ACCEPTED AND SHOULD BE THE STANDARD BECAUSE OF ITS WIDE-SPREAD APPEAL TO EVERYONE WHO USES IT?

Otherwise, do we agree on what the term Net Neutrality means?

The system we currently use to describe the way companies cannot impact the data inside the internet, and only the speed of its conveyance rather than its contents' conveyance?????

that sentence I just said describes Net Neutrality.

we are using the system described in that sentence. which, as i said, refers to net neutrality.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

Whoa, man. Take it easy. I'm not saying we don't have neutrality. Why are you getting angry?

Wikipedia is right about what the concept of net neutrality should be. However, people like Al Franken, and other big douchebags in this great nation of ours are saying we need government control to maintain neutrality. I'm just saying we don't need government control and I doubt that we even need laws for it.

We are actually in agreement through most of what you said, I just have one issue I would like to point out.


Television (a medium designed for news and entertainment) operates in a different mindset or goal from the internet (a system of quickly accessing and sharing data of any type). Television is more commonly an entertainment venue and the internet is considered little more than a tool.

It's a little difficult for me to describe, but essentially, TV is a system centered around perhaps a couple hundred individual networks (TV Stations) rather than the service itself. The internet is a service that connects to billions or trillions of networks, and ISPs merely give access to the service because it would be impractical to do it the other way. There is no reason to think that ISPs would ever try to make the internet more like TV.

_________________

BR finally overdosed Vicodin?

PS
Here's the new proposed bill of "Neutral Network Neutrality" (sic) as written by them whacko Republicans.
http://stearnsforms.house.gov/UploadedF ... y_Bill.pdf

Although I don't see anything that would indicate either what Ruff's vid was saying, or government control Ruff had been warning over, not even the wikileaks example I gave would be affected. Even though it's an unnecessary bill. Guess Val should read it and relay it in simple terms.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Well after skimming it, it seems very well-intentioned attempt at preventing additional regulation. Plus, it's short and concise, so the Democrats will be able to read it in less than a month.
A joke for a joke.

_________________

i am okay with most of your stuff RD but here:




sure there is. TV is popular and profitable, and people are regularly abusing the internet's 'goal' (as you put it) to achieve the goal of TV. Of course companies would want to impose legal constraints on a consumer exploiting a system. So, there is plenty of reason to think that ISPs would want to make the internet more like TV and TV companies wanting ISPs to have that control. And in fact, a lot of media companies nowadays do both, so it is definitely in their interest to keep the services clear and separate for, if nothing else, ease of accounting. :P

and, like i said, it's not that hard to simply assign more standardized archetypes to the billions of websites. we already have .com, .net, .org, etc which is supposed to differential between (in the case of the three examples) commerce-focused, network-infrastructure, and then organizations not following the conditions of the previous two (nor any other).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain that's the intention of these top level domain tags anyway.

these domain names are not regulated and so their purposes are not enforced, meaning that people use them according to their whimsy, which is fine i guess.

but it wouldn't be that difficult to regulate the internet into groups that could be controlled by their "ID stamp". :\

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

Well, it is titled "To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from regulating information services or Internet access services absent a market failure, and for other purposes." The bill seems intended to prevent the FCC from doing things like stopping Comcast from blocking BitTorrent, thereby preventing it from enforcing Net Neutrality.

HOWEVER, some of the terms are not very well-defined, so (if the compliance requirements for regulation are not too difficult in practice to meet) it could be construed as a considerable increase in regulatory power, or at least an encouragement to more fully use the existing power. For example, in an ideal free market, the price to consumers equals the marginal cost of production. Since the price of Internet access (and telecommunications in general) well exceeds the marginal cost of supplying service, it could be construed as a market failure and therefore subject to regulation to change it.



Anyway, regarding the Crowder video, I could critique that, but for now I'll post what Al Franken actually said in his speech there. Consider how that and other dialogue was edited.

@Valhallen: I'm at work right now, I'll have to watch that video when I get home. Still, my perception of what Al Franken says will likely be so critical as to take his words out of a possible context. This is because I believe Al Franken to be an idiot and I wouldn't trust him to guide me to www.comptia.org, much less tell me what's in the best interest of the internet.

@BeeAre: I'll talk to you more about this one-on-one.

_________________

it is not a hard argument or anything :X

VCRs and video cassettes opened the way for illegal recording and distribution before the internet, and companies successfully lobbied restrictions to be put into place.

the internet is a harder nut to crack, tho, so would need more specific stipulations in more specific language.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

Mm. Good thing people aren't going to be downloading illegal copies of the internet on VHS.

_________________

Indeed. But people did record TV programs on VHS. Some people even copied and shared them.

Some people even made copies of tapes they had bought and then sold them.

_________________
CAUTION: Would anyone tell me if I was getting stupider?

i am the chairman president sole donating patron and entire workforce of EVILCRAPPRR?(Electronic Video Internet Love Cassette Recorded After Presidential Powerhouse Ronald Reagan?).

every day i record every part of every website on the web onto as many vhs tapes as it takes.

i'm almost done, but there's just so much porn.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

So something like a trillion tapes per day? Floppies are more efficient.

you should see me transcribe the last digit of pi in binary, it's something like infinity^pi - the curve of the universe's rate of expansion divided by the speed of light as it passes an event horizon that is also coincidentally the size of the universe

i transcribe the binary on forever elephants' legs, the things you see in salvidore dali's paintings with legs that are rays from the knees down. that's why the clocks are melting.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.