prev <-> next
[2010-09-24 11:24:20] - i mean that makes sense to me. i'd be fine if comcast could like throttle, but maybe they can't call themselves an "internet provider" or something. i mean i don't have a problem with companies existing like this as long as 1. "regular people can understand why these companies are bad and 2. people have alternatives - aaron
[2010-09-24 11:22:16] - paul: if a user pays for 50 MB/s access... and aporter.org pays for 50 MB/s access... they should be allowed to connect that fast. If comcast makes them super slow, it's against the principle of net neutrality (if my interpretation of what adrian said is correct) - aaron
[2010-09-24 10:52:51] - a: I think what you said makes sense, but I also think that doesn't follow from the part of the principle that you quoted. Couldn't Comcast just say their internet access (for everybody) is super fast for NBC sites and super slow for everything else? Would that be allowed? -Paul
[2010-09-24 10:30:09] - paul: in both cases, fox news and the mail server owner aren't ISPs. here is an analogy: when i connect to the internet, comcast should not be filtering my access to espn.com, but if i feel like throttling/filtering my own access to espn.com (for whatever reason) that is fully allowed by the "principle". does that make more sense? ~a
[2010-09-24 10:25:36] - Daniel: If everybody had at least two or three ISPs (cable companies, Fios, wireless, etc) to choose from, would that change your mind? -Paul
[2010-09-24 10:19:33] - ... rights to answer that part. I think that if the gov said we should check traffic to make sure its not kiddie porn I would object to that because its not net neutrality(as I view it - the big dumb pipes idea). Thats what the FBI is for. -Daniel
[2010-09-24 10:18:25] - Paul: I think the difference for me is that I don't want my infrastructure making choices / taking choices away from me. If destinations of that infranstructure want to censor or not thats their call and I can choose to go somewhere else because the infrastructure allows me to. I'm not sure about property rights though? I don't think I know enough about property...
[2010-09-24 10:18:22] - a: "the mail server owner was throttling his OWN bandwidth" Interesting. I guess the question becomes... who owns the bandwidth? I would think that technically the ISPs would own the bandwidth and the end users are just using it. -Paul
[2010-09-24 10:17:10] - a: "then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level" Wait, I'm not sure I buy this. It sounds like this is saying that as long as Comcast censors Fox News for everybody who subscribes... it's ok. Right? -Paul
[2010-09-24 10:14:26] - Daniel: If that's the case... what if google news decided to censor all conservative news sites? Technically, google news is a conduit and not a creator. Should they have the right to do that? -paul
[2010-09-24 10:13:46] - Daniel: Sure, I understand they are different types of companies, but are you saying that some companies have more property rights (in this case, the right to censor) than others? If so, than why? Just because one is a content creator and the other is a conduit? -Paul
[2010-09-24 10:12:32] - Daniel: Then, you want to make sure it's not hate speech.... hopefully you can see how that can quickly devolve into censorship. -Paul
[2010-09-24 10:11:41] - Daniel: I can't prove that Net Neutrality will lead to bad things, I can only ask you to look at the history of government getting involved in regulating things and look where it inevitably leads. Maybe it start with saying "treat all data equally". Next, why not make sure that data isn't kiddie porn? -Paul
[2010-09-24 10:08:28] - paul: in your mail server example, the mail server owner was throttling his OWN bandwidth, not someone else's bandwidth. "The principle states that ... (see below)" ~a
[2010-09-24 10:05:57] - "Do you think a website ... has a right to censor whatever they want?" yes they do have that right. "The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level" a website censoring material does not apply. ~a
[2010-09-24 09:58:36] - Paul: They aren't a content creator like a website or tv station. They are a conduit to content. I would rather my conduit not make decisions about what content I can get to. It would be like if roads magically made extra lanes for you if you were going to Trader Joes but would limit everyone going to Safeway to one lane. I wouldn't like that either. -Daniel
[2010-09-24 09:56:18] - Daniel: What I'm wondering now, is if you guys believe that the ISPs have property rights to the affect that they should be allowed to censor things if they want. The answer would obviously appear to be no, so I'm wondering why you think they are different from a website or tv station. -Paul
[2010-09-24 09:56:10] - Paul: I'm still confused how net neutrality leads to bad things. I know that seems to be your fear and that you gave Affirm. Action as an example of gov doing something in support of a good goal but wouldn't gov censorship be the opposite of net neutrality? How does the gov adopt a policy of net neutrality and censor thigns? -Daniel
[2010-09-24 09:51:27] - Daniel: Would I be ok with Comcast not letting people go to ESPN? Not really, but I do think they probably should have the right to, if they wanted to for some reason. It really becomes meddlesome because of the government encouraged monopolies for cable companies. -Paul
[2010-09-24 09:49:08] - Daniel: China? No. I do not approve of government censorship, that's one reason I am against Net Neutrality, I believe it would eventually lead to that. -Paul
[2010-09-24 09:48:08] - a: "nah, probably not. why?" Just curious where you draw the line. Next question: Do you think a website (let's say Fox News, for the sake of argument) has a right to censor whatever they want? Maybe they refuse to cover any of Obama's speeches. -Paul
[2010-09-24 09:46:33] - a: I'm not sure why my example doesn't fit, then. Can you explain? -Paul
[2010-09-24 09:30:21] - Paul: So to take your example a bit further are you ok with China's censorship of the internet there? Are you ok with comcast not letting people go to espn because in that hypothetical situation they have the option to switch to another isp who does go to espn? -Daniel
[2010-09-23 17:55:17] - of course replace "have the right" with "should have the right under NN" ~a
[2010-09-23 17:53:52] - "do you think they have the right to do that?" nah, probably not. why? ~a
[2010-09-23 17:52:40] - paul: no it wouldn't only apply to end users. regardless, your mail server example doesn't fit. ~a
[2010-09-23 17:34:43] - a: Well, let's take the great fear, that Comcast decides that it doesn't much like espn, since it competes with Comcast Sports Net, and so it flat out refuses to let it's customers visit ESPN's website. Do you think they have the right to do that? I'm guessing the answer is no, but I want to make sure. -Paul
[2010-09-23 17:33:06] - a: Ah, because net neutrality would only apply to end-users? -Paul
[2010-09-23 17:28:27] - to answer your other question: "in an extreme case" do you have an example? ~a
[2010-09-23 17:28:05] - hmmm, see i then you're bending the definition of network neutrality: "The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access." your mail server example doesn't fit into that at all. ~a
[2010-09-23 17:21:52] - a: Well, I think you can take end-users out of it for it to still make sense. I'm pretty sure companies like yahoo and microsoft and google throttle traffic to their mail servers from certain IPs/domains/etc just so they aren't constantly overloaded. -Paul
[2010-09-23 17:19:44] - I have a random question for net neutrality proponents: Do you think that ISPs probably/maybe have the right to, in an extreme case, block traffic to a website? If not, then why? -Paul
[2010-09-23 17:16:47] - paul: well are you talking about traffic to/from the end-users? most people get their email via a third party (mail server), so that complicates the situation a little bit. throttling is easier to discuss when there are only two parties. ~a
[2010-09-23 17:16:17] - "a little big ignorant" Heh, bad typo. -Paul
[2010-09-23 17:14:13] - a: My guess is a company like yahoo would see this big flood of emails coming from this company, and throttle them down so that more "legitimate" emails can get through. -Paul
[2010-09-23 17:13:21] - a: I'll probably sound a little big ignorant here, but I'll give it a try. What about some company that sends out huge quantities of completely legal commercial email that most people consider "junk"? -Paul
[2010-09-23 17:11:41] - a: Well, for some reason I could've sworn the topic of spam was brought up, but I can't find it anymore. I was just thinking how spam is such a grey area since there is illegal spam and then there are legal emails that most people probably consider spam. -Paul
[2010-09-23 17:04:41] - paul: what's legal but should be throttled? ~a
[2010-09-23 17:02:41] - I also read a good point on a website, which mentioned that the people that would be creating Net Neutrality laws are the same people who think that the internet is "a series of tubes". I'm not sure we want to rely on them to consider all of the possibilities and unintended consequences. -paul
[2010-09-23 17:00:24] - Daniel: Just out of curiosity, do you have any proof that ISPs want to throttle stuff based on it's website origin? I have no doubt that is the fear, but I also don't think anybody has shown any proof that any ISP has done this. As far as I know, the big example is throttling BitTorrent. -Paul
[2010-09-23 16:53:32] - ... trouble for serving up child porn or something like that. Whereas if they just blindly pass everything along then they aren't responsible. -Daniel
[2010-09-23 16:53:10] - I don't think isp's throttle stuff today. I think fi they did it would cause a scene, people to get up in arms and stuff. I don't think ISP's want to throttle illegal stuff. They just want to throttle stuff based on its website origin. I read somewhere (don't remember) that ISP's don't want to deal with question of legal/illegal because then they could get in...
[2010-09-23 16:50:56] - a: that's simple enough as a concept, but in practice, P2P has always been a large grey area on legality. - mig
[2010-09-23 16:50:07] - a: That would be a simple way of doing things, but I'm not sure the end result would be satisfactory. After all, I'm guessing the ISPs right now throttle a lot of stuff which is legal, but which most of the message board might agree should be throttled. -Paul
[2010-09-23 16:48:53] - hell, if the RIAA/MPAA gets any influence in the legislation process you very well could see a mandate to throttle certain types of traffic. - mig
[2010-09-23 16:47:30] - mig: well it would be extremely easy: throttling illegal traffic (traffic that breaks laws) = legitimate throttling, throttling non-illegal traffic (traffic that breaks no laws) = illegitimate throttling. ~a
[2010-09-23 16:44:43] - legislation with special interests whispering in their ear. - mig
[2010-09-23 16:44:24] - "(though isps would need to have exceptions for filtering/throttling traffic that is strictly and obviously ILLEGAL)" I think that may be my biggest gripe about net netruality: who exactly is getting to define what is "legitamate" throttling? It's certainly not going to be rationally minded people like you or daniel, but politicians who tend to write these type of
[2010-09-23 16:37:29] - i think i'm probably for network neutrality more than i'm against it for mostly the reasons daniel listed (though isps would need to have exceptions for filtering/throttling traffic that is strictly and obviously ILLEGAL). ~a
[2010-09-23 16:36:37] - i, like most of you, am on the fence about network neutrality. i know that major reputable companies do scummy/unethical filtering and throttling. but i realize that having a body (the government or otherwise) force a "neutral internet" might make some cool things impossible. ~a
[2010-09-23 16:35:33] - a: I'm also going to throw out there that the wikipedia article on Net Neutrality seems a little biased.
-Paul[2010-09-23 16:34:15] - haha! i think it's great that they're quoting the creator of bittorrent in their argument against network neutrality. ~a
[2010-09-23 16:32:23] - a: Honestly, I have no idea, but it's something in wikipedia as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Opposition_to_legislation). -Paul
[2010-09-23 16:05:33] - "is that it could cripple a lot of the defenses against denial of service attacks" how so? i don't see this being an actual problem. ~a
[2010-09-23 13:23:28] - Daniel: Well, they are mostly different, but that's somewhat irrelevant. My point is that the government often meddles in an area for some noble purpose (equality, the children, etc) but ends up creating bad regulations that would seem to have little to do with the original intent. -Paul
[2010-09-23 13:19:31] - I'm having*
[2010-09-23 13:19:18] - Paul: I think have trouble equating racial equality and network traffic equailty. They seem very different to me. -Daniel
[2010-09-23 13:14:32] - Daniel: You asked "What are you afraid of the gov doing that would be bad regulation?" I am trying to answer that. -Paul
[2010-09-23 13:12:16] - Daniel: In theory, I totally agree, but my point is look at how government has handled racial equality. You would think saying "all races are treated equal" would invalidate affirmative action laws that treat races differently, right? -Paul
[2010-09-23 13:09:22] - Paul: I guess I'm just not sure what bad regulation follows. If you say all traffic is treated equal then wouldn't anything else invalidate that part? There isn't room for additional regulation that I can think of if they actually stick to "All traffic is equal". I would agree that the gov issuing regulations that deviated from that would be bad. -Daniel
[2010-09-23 13:06:25] - Pierce: I believe my quote was "(in my mind) bad regulations". -Paul
[2010-09-23 13:05:23] - Daniel: I'm saying that I don't want to see the government decide that it's their job to promote equality of data packets on the internet, because I see plenty of other bad regulations following. -Paul
[2010-09-23 13:04:51] - Paul: seems like "bad regulations (in your mind)" is redundant. - pierce
[2010-09-23 13:03:15] - Pierce: I assume you are being sarcastic, but I still don't understand your point. -Paul
[2010-09-23 13:01:52] - Daniel: You asked me to give examples of bad regulation that could follow. I countered with a example where the government tried to promote racial equality, and in doing so came up with a bunch of (in my mind) bad regulations. -Paul
[2010-09-23 12:58:51] - Paul: There are other ways. Arguably harder. But probably not all that hard, all things considered. -- Xpovos
[2010-09-23 12:48:19] - Paul: because if we'd solved racism completely ten years after the constitution was written then I doubt we'd be arguing about affirmative action today? - pierce
[2010-09-23 12:47:14] - Paul: I'm confused by your analogy. We currently don't discrimiate network traffic. Thats how it should stay (imo). Your question is why wouldn't something like affirmative action happen? I'm not sure how to answer that... because if we just send all info through big dumb pipes then it doesn't? /confused -Daniel
[2010-09-23 12:44:46] - Xpovos: How long until the Supreme Court declares that we have a fundamental right to net neutral internet? I think we're going to have to wait until Obama gets to replace a "conservative" justice. -Paul
[2010-09-23 12:42:11] - Daniel: Totally agree... but are things like affirmative action about racial equality? Not really, but it's excused away as trying to make up for past discrimination. Why wouldn't that happen here as well? -Paul
[2010-09-23 12:25:03] - We could go so far as some countries have and declare broadband Internet to be a fundamental right ... -- Xpovos
[2010-09-23 12:22:42] - i don't care who keeps them in check but i don't think their customers will. so that leaves either the government or, maybe some other weird organization that hasn't been fathomed yet. i've heard mention of some international group which would work to report/prevent things like internet censorship, like an internet U.N or something - aaron
[2010-09-23 12:20:43] - i agree with xpovos; i'd be OK with non-net-neutrality if people were guaranteed a choice. in all seriousness, if there were some sort of neutral "public option" for internet i would be fine with companies doing whatever they want. barring something like that i think companies need to be kept in check - aaron
[2010-09-23 12:09:12] - Paul: ? that wouldn't be net neutrality though? -Daniel
[2010-09-23 12:04:50] - Daniel: It wouldn't at all be a surprise to me to see this devolve into the government mandating that traffic for renewable energy or Obamacare websites go faster than cigarette or oil companies. -Paul
[2010-09-23 12:02:52] - Daniel: I can see your point, but I don't think it's as simple as saying, "All data should be treated equally". It sounds like a noble goal, but I think there could be tons of unintended consequences. Look at all of the regulations and laws the government has come up with to try to assist in racial equality. -Paul
[2010-09-23 11:59:34] - Vinnie: I know one argument against net neutrality is that it could cripple a lot of the defenses against denial of service attacks. -Paul
[2010-09-23 11:56:33] - pierce: i never said it wasn't. - mig
[2010-09-23 11:55:46] - I just get the impression that net neutrality laws are designed to treat "good" types of traffic equally? - vinnie
[2010-09-23 11:54:34] - I don't understand net neutrality that well, but could ISP stop traffic like viruses or blacklisted domains with a generic "all traffic must be treated equal" net neutrality law in place? - vinnie
[2010-09-23 11:52:00] - Or wrong. - pierce
[2010-09-23 11:51:46] - mig: the lack of regulation (each ISP having its own throttling rules and having to understand them) isn't simple either. Simple does not mean right. - pierce
[2010-09-23 11:38:32] - Thats what I want it to be. -Daniel
[2010-09-23 11:37:30] - daniel: do you honestly think legislation coming from the government is going to be that simple? - mig
[2010-09-23 11:32:35] - Yeah I get that its regulation, but it seems like its one sentence of regulation. All traffic equal. The end. Otherwise we have ISP's regulating the traffic and their rules are going to be more complex and I don't think beneficial to consumers. -Daniel
[2010-09-23 11:22:02] - daniel: not to take sides on the discussion at hand, but a government mandate that ISPs treat all their traffic equally is regulation. - mig
[2010-09-23 11:19:29] - Paul: I guess thats a point where we disagree. I see neutrality as the opposite of regulation because it means all data equal. I see many more dangers once you start treating different forms of traffic differently. -Daniel
[2010-09-23 11:13:11] - Daniel: It's not just that net neutrality itself might be harmful, but that it sets the precedent of the government regulating the internet. I would be surprised if even the biggest supporter of regulation *cough*Pierce*cough* would be unable to see the dangers in that. -Paul
[2010-09-23 11:12:42] - Paul: I doubt it, bundling channels people want with channels they don't is a classic cable move to ensure a higher price. And the analogy breaks down because they have the other 'channels', better analogy they're just not HD. -- Xpovos
[2010-09-23 11:10:40] - Xpovos: I don't know, for the same reason comcast wouldn't want to only have NBC stations in their cable TV packages? -Paul
[2010-09-23 11:09:21] - Daniel: As for bad regulation, there are plenty of possibilities. It would drive companies like the "ISP for Gamers" that Andrew mentioned out of business. I don't think it's a stretch to think that it could eventually spell the end of different tiers of internet speeds for consumers. -Paul
[2010-09-23 11:06:04] - Paul: Not yet, but they definitely want to. Particularly with the incestuous relationships being formed. Take Comcast buying NBC. Why wouldn't Comcast then give preferential treatment to their own data/content sites? That's not a reason to block the Comcast/NBC merger, necessarily, but it has to be a factor. -- Xpovos
[2010-09-23 11:01:34] - Daniel: As for ESPN vs Foxsports, etc... is this a problem? Say what you will about throttling, but are there any instances of ISPs intentionally slowing down specific news sites but not others? -Paul
[2010-09-23 10:59:57] - Daniel: It's not about ranking which emails are important. Frankly, I see very little reason why any email absolutely has to get to it's destination in the same amount of time it takes a video stream or a Starcraft 2 data packet. I'm fine with ALL emails taking a few seconds longer to get to it's destination if it makes youtube more reliably faster. -Paul
[2010-09-23 10:54:05] - I also read about an ISP in England a little while back. They're carving themselves a niche, basically saying they'd be non-net-neutral and prioritize gaming content. It was an ISP for gamers who wanted an extra performance boost. I'm not against that either, but it precedent worries me all the same. -- Xpovos
[2010-09-23 10:52:52] - I'd have less of a problem with a non-neutral net if it were clearly explained to the customers, and they had choice. Since they have neither, I'm pro-net-neutrality. I'm in favor of dumb pipes. Just really fat ones. -- Xpovos
[2010-09-23 10:51:22] - Paul: What are you afraid of the gov doing that would be bad regulation? The point is that everything is supposed to be treated equally so while I fully believe in the power of the gov to botch things I'm not sure how they 'regulate' that other than tell ISP's they aren't allowed to throttle stuff. -Daniel
[2010-09-23 10:50:03] - Paul: How do you know which emails are important? Which ones can go slow and which are time sensitive? Once you allow that what other exceptions are allowed / not allowed? Does espn get to go faster than fox sports? Does cnn get to go faster than bbc? Would huffingtonpost.com been successful if it had been way slower than other news services in the begining? -Daniel
[2010-09-23 10:32:16] - Daniel: Even assuming that the government would be a harmless regulator (which I would heavily dispute), I still think equality sounds good in concept, but is terrible in execution. I see no reason why emails have to be treated the same as streaming video in terms of speed. -Paul
[2010-09-23 10:19:00] - Paul: I don't think the gov would be regulating the internet. They would be telling telecoms/ISP's that they weren't allowed to regulate the internet. The idea is no one should regulate the internet. All websites/info should be treated equally. -Daniel
[2010-09-23 10:16:03] - Pierce would be right, though. My knee-jerk reaction to the net neutrality debate is that I generally don't want the government regulating the internet. -Paul
[2010-09-23 10:13:50] - Wikipedia seems to have a good article on the subject. Basically people are afraid if telecom's are allowed to they will do obnoxious things like throttling some types of traffic (eg torrents) and charge for different tiers of service. However the telecoms swear they would never do such a thing. -Daniel
[2010-09-23 10:13:25] - Daniel: Well, I think recent court cases have ruled that they are not supposed to, but I also think that they have been doing it in limited amounts up until (and including) now. -Paul
[2010-09-23 10:12:00] - Paul: we live in a de facto net neutral environment for a number of reasons, but the explosion of Internet services over 10 years has made throttling a much greater temptation to access providers, especially ones who are part of a conglomerate with content providers. - pierce
[2010-09-23 10:11:29] - Pierce: Well, I would submit that the problem you're having is the government encouragement of cable monopolies. -Paul
[2010-09-23 10:09:54] - Telecoms enjoy the most literal form of a "network effect" encouraging monopolistic practices and so the normal free market rules don't fully apply. - pierce
[2010-09-23 10:09:24] - Paul: I think we currently do exist in net neutrality environment. ISP's aren't allowed to inspect traffic and send it slower / faster based on where its from or where its going. Didn't comcast cause a fuss for trying to do that with torrents? -Daniel
[2010-09-23 10:08:44] - Daniel: And I doubt the choice is really between "some things fast and some things slow" vs "everything fast". The example I've always heard is that things like email don't necessarily need to have the same priority as things like streaming video. -Paul
[2010-09-23 10:08:11] - Paul's probably against it because the primary way to enforce it would be through government regulation. I'm sure he believes that companies that abused traffic throttling would lose customers. Speaking as someone who has no viable broadband options besides Comcast, I suspect that's bunk, but it may not be his opinion. - pierce
[2010-09-23 10:07:17] - Daniel: As I understand it, we currently operate in a non-net-neutality environment. I didn't think non-net-neutrality meant individual consumers paying more or less for anything. -Paul
[2010-09-23 09:41:45] - Paul: You are against net neutrality? As I understand it that means generally that means you want to pay more or less for certain sites that in turn pay more or less correspondingly with the speed their traffic gets moved over the network. I think a lot of people are against it because they just want everything to be fast. -Daniel
[2010-09-23 09:22:28] - Just out of curiosity, what are people's opinions about net neutrality? Honestly, I don't know as much about it as I should, but I believe it's something I am against. -Paul
[2010-09-23 08:09:43] - xpovos: yeah the media seems to be doing their job wrt google (or at least the alternative media.) people who use their products understand they're a business and they're looking out for their own interest - aaron
[2010-09-22 18:08:48] - aaron: i'll still continue to support them. I love my G1, and I'll definitely get another Android phone next; but between everything else and things like this, I'm more cautious in my support. They're welcome to be cautious too, but that caution may come back to bite them. -- Xpovos
[2010-09-22 16:16:55] - i'm sure they're just being cautious - aaron
[2010-09-22 16:16:45] - xpovos: be nice to google! they don't want verizon and company slamming the door on their dick when they're just penetrating the smartphone market - aaron
[2010-09-22 15:26:38] - http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-carrier-humping-net-neutrality-surrender-monkey/ Very disappointing results from Google. The title doesn't do it justice. -- Xpovos
[2010-09-22 14:37:39] - a: amy's diagram - the right group is people who own a place, the left group is people renting (from someone in the right group). and the subgroup in the right group is people who are renting their place to someone on the left - vinnie
[2010-09-22 14:23:38] - "Pluto is not even a planet any more, which I'm very disturbed about," he continued. "When I grew up, Pluto was a planet. And now I'm 25 and I turn around and Pluto's no longer a planet. I gotta find that guy (who changed its planetary classification) and elbow him in the nose. "I love Pluto. Everybody loves Pluto."
[2010-09-22 14:23:13] - http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Ron-Artest-loves-Pluto-hates-that-it-is-not-a-p?urn=nba-271334 - mig
[2010-09-22 13:44:52] - a: good photo, the intersection is really really small! isn't that weird? is it two one way streets? - aaron
[2010-09-22 12:03:01] - did amy ever give the answer to the venn diagram? my guess is it has something to do with myers briggs or something similer. ~a
[2010-09-22 11:07:55] - this picture has a lot going for it. it was obviously taken by an experienced photographer. both of the cars are brand new and clean. the intersection has a neat feel. both of the drivers are well dressed. am i the only one that didn't know they drive on the left? ~a
[2010-09-21 18:41:51] - aaron: mooooo. ~a
[2010-09-21 18:37:10] - a: what's up? - aaron
[2010-09-21 18:27:56] - fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
~a[2010-09-21 15:27:21] - I d/l'ed civ 5 last night. Will be trying it out tonight. -Daniel
[2010-09-21 15:19:02] - aaron: that's what it sounds like. - mig
[2010-09-21 15:07:52] - http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/09/20/civilisation-v-review/ another civ 5 review/preview... it's so pretty! - aaron
[2010-09-21 15:07:22] - mig: so if you have 2 barracks, one with a tech lab, one with a reactor, you used to need to be careful to type "daadaadaa"... now will "aaaaaaddd" work? is that what that means? if so, woo - aaron
[2010-09-21 15:00:30] - aaron: though they are ok against zealots, I would prefer going roaches to deal with zealots. - mig
[2010-09-21 14:56:24] - "Marines trained at multiple barracks will now prefer a Barracks with a Reactor over one with atech Lab or no attachment." Thank fucking god, that was so annoying. - mig
[2010-09-21 14:53:09] - also patch 1.1 is now live. - mig
[2010-09-21 14:52:56] - they do a fair amount of damage to zealots since they are light units, but since it takes more banelings to kill a zealot than a marine its sometimes not as noticeable. - mig
[2010-09-21 14:51:00] - aaron: Supposedly they are supposed to be, but I've really only noticed banelings being great against marines. -Paul
[2010-09-21 14:49:21] - mig: heh yeah in some contexts i guess. things like, burrowing them and detonating them underground. and in some contexts they result in very efficient "trades" although i still don't get why mark (and perhaps others) think they're a good idea against zealots... - aaron
[2010-09-21 13:47:20] - aaron: I would count banelings as a "cool trick". - mig
[2010-09-21 13:45:27] - gurkie: Well, 90% of everything is crap. This was just concentrated on a specific variety... -- Xpovos
[2010-09-21 11:13:08] - honestly i feel the TvP matchup is easier for me than TvZ is. - mig
[2010-09-21 11:10:29] - Stephen: Yea I concur... thats a lot of starcraft crap... ~gurkie
[2010-09-21 11:02:30] - I've found the zerg players who give me the most trouble are those who are able to tech switch on the drop of a hat. The ones who start with mass zerglings and mutas, and then transition into whatever counters best my mech/marine composition I tend to lose to frequently. - mig
[2010-09-21 10:12:46] - daniel: no you can't because if it's already burrowed that will unburrow it
i think paul's right, if you want to burrow/unburrow you just need to use the map. unless, of course, you only ever want to burrow one roach and then stop microing - aaron[2010-09-21 10:05:16] - i know! we should be talking about how awesome faith is so then maybe travis will come back to the message board. ~a
[2010-09-21 09:52:35] - Wall of Starcraft text
- Stephen[2010-09-21 09:37:56] - Daniel: I've seen one video that recommends turning on life bars for all units all the time so it's easier to pick out the roach with low life without having to select the group. I've played some of the challenges, and I did have to use that strategy with hydras on one level. -Paul
[2010-09-21 09:36:32] - a: I'm not against micro, I just generally suck at it and don't particularly enjoy it. I would much rather just focus on building tons of units and then mindlessly throw them at my enemies. It's just Miguel had such success psi-storming my mutas in SC1.
-Paul[2010-09-21 09:27:33] - Paul: If you have all the roaches in a group you can select the group then click the roach with low life then click R. Have you done the challenge mission things? Those help with some of those micro concepts. -Daniel
[2010-09-21 09:25:58] - i think that counts as a trick. paul, i thought you were against playing micro.
. . . i'm guessing micro matters more for sc2 than sc1. or maybe i'm just playing against better players than i was in sc1. ~a[2010-09-21 09:20:45] - Aaron: I really want to learn how to better micro roaches where, in the middle of a battle, you burrow the ones who are about to die. Not sure it really counts as a trick, but I've seen videos of it being really useful. -Paul
[2010-09-21 00:00:26] - a: well both are important, but force field is the moneymaker. It only makes a choke for yourself if you use it wrong. It's really vital for splitting an enemy force into bite-sized chunks. It's the difference between 12v12 and 12v4+10v4+9v4. - pierce
[2010-09-20 22:49:02] - a: but yeah i'm like you, almost every game i lose is just me not having enough units. but, i do feel like every other race's tier 1/tier 2 units come with cool tricks and zerg doesn't get any. i see a lot of games decided by crazy tier 1/tier 1.5 toys that zerg doesn't have a counterpart to - aaron
[2010-09-20 22:45:33] - a: yeah i've never lost to anybody for that reason either, but 90% of high-level PvZ replays i watch involve zerg throwing 100 supply of units to 20 supply of protoss units because of force field abuse. protoss blocking off their ramp, or surrounding some ranged units, it's really key - aaron
[2010-09-20 18:55:51] - also i find when i lose it's rarely to people using force fields, or guardian shields (or blink for that matter) against me. it's usually cause they got lots more units than i do
~a[2010-09-20 18:37:27] - pierce: force field or guardian shield? i think force field has limited use. you're creating a choke point for yourself as much as your enemy. am i not understanding something? ~a
[2010-09-20 18:33:33] - aaron: you might have different definitions of micro. I feel like micro is probably about as important on zerg as it is on protoss -- and definitely more than terran. ZvZ often boils down to baneling micro. Burrowing roaches is on par with blink stalkers, you need to micro zerglings for surrounds, and you spread creep specifically for the movement speed micro advantage.
[2010-09-20 18:18:57] - a: I don't have the hang of blink, but force fields are basically the reason I'm platinum. I'm not that good. - pierce
[2010-09-20 18:13:20] - "stalker blinking/sentry forcefielding stuff that's kind of terran/protoss 101" haha i don't do those things. i guess i'm still on my prerequisites? ~a
[2010-09-20 18:08:09] - pierce: actually i take that back, i did see a pretty innovative mass queens strategy which involved lots of micro with using transfusion to keep all of his queens alive... but that was really bizarre - aaron
[2010-09-20 18:04:57] - pierce: yeah i assume a lot of them are posted for that reason too, just because he's a poor sport about it. i've seen him pull some good macro but honestly i haven't seen any zerg micro, ever, that i can think of. or at least not on the level of marauder kiting/stalker blinking/sentry forcefielding stuff that's kind of terran/protoss 101 - aaron
[2010-09-20 17:57:37] - I bet the videos of idra losing are often posted out of schadenfreude. He's notorious for bad manners and emonovas and people like to see that punished. That said, I've seen him do amazing macro/micro with a variety of tech in one game, then send a million ultras to their deaths for no reason in another. - pierce
[2010-09-20 17:50:35] - matt: that sounds like a good strategy if you can catch them in transit. there are some maps (kulas ravine and desert oasis iirc) with some awful drop spots for siege tanks, but you're right, if they drop somewhere in your base with a siege tank then that's silly of them and it's easy to take out - aaron
[2010-09-20 17:39:33] - hmm, I actually don't have too many problems with siege tanks any more. I try to get burrow and plant my units somewhere between our two bases. If you catch him in transit, he isn't in seige mode. If he's dropping, your OLs should spot him in time. If I can't beat him through the first burrow surprise, I should have enough time to get ultras for his next push - Matt
[2010-09-20 17:34:32] - aaron: Conceptually, I just like being able to focus on upgrading missile attacks and carapace only (and ignoring melee attacks). I agree about the HP and armor of roaches being important, but you would think the vastly greater numbers and increased damage of zerglings would help balance it out. -Paul
[2010-09-20 17:18:37] - paul: i think it's because roaches are better at "tanking" for hydras since 1. they have HP 2. they have armor 3. they have a ranged attack? i guess some combination of those is really important to dealing with certain combinations of enemy units - aaron
[2010-09-20 17:15:20] - I really want zerglings and hydras to work, since that would solve a lot of the supply and gas problems I run into with roaches and hydras, but for whatever reason z/h seems to be so much worse than r/h. -Paul
[2010-09-20 17:13:18] - really though i think you're just better off not playing zerg. i think at somewhere around #15, idra is the best zerg player in the world (according to sc2ranks.com) but almost every video i see involves him getting humiliated by some flavor of terran cheese tactic. but it's possible that he's just a bad player - aaron
[2010-09-20 17:03:50] - there is really no answer to siege tanks right now. zerglings are supposed to be an answer but siege tanks can one shot them so blizzard fucked up a little, that'll get fixed up post-patch. in the meantime you can go mass muta and hope terrans are too stupid to build marines
or tech up to brood lords i guess - aaron[2010-09-20 17:02:31] - matt: if i beat a terran, it's with an early baneling bust or nothing. terran is very OP versus zerg. roach/hydra is pretty good, as paul has indicated, but you'll get destroyed by siege tanks/marauders - aaron
[2010-09-20 16:42:10] - Matt: Interesting. I used to love Mutas in SC1, but every time I've used them in SC2, I feel like they lose to almost any unit they encounter. I'll gladly pit my hydras against battleships, vikings and thors, but would be terrified to send mutas against them. -Paul
[2010-09-20 16:28:11] - Paul: Hydras is probably the issue, I don't usually get them. On mutas though, terran actually don't have an air counter to mutas. Their only hard counter is thors, and thors are super slow. I just feel dirty going mutas every game.
[2010-09-20 16:14:56] - Daniel: I love a good roach / hydra combo. It works so well against most anything. Zerglings always seem to die too fast on me and mutas seem at a disadvantage vs almost any other air unit. -Paul
[2010-09-20 16:13:57] - Daniel: Is there an easy way to find out? It looks like I am 21-15 in 1v1 play overall, but I'm not sure of my record once I get into Platinum. -Paul
[2010-09-20 16:06:19] - maybe thats why i'm still gold though....
[2010-09-20 16:01:08] - whats your record in plat paul? I've never built hydra's in a one v one and almost never roaches. I'm pretty much a speedling/muta build most of the time. Corrupters broodlords if the game goes long. -Daniel
[2010-09-20 15:58:15] - Matt: If I decide to go banelings for whatever reason, I ignore roaches entirely and just get hydras to go along with zerglings (and banelings). I've run into enough banshee rushes to know that getting to hydras quickly is key. -Paul
[2010-09-20 15:57:03] - Matt: If it's 1v1, and I don't see anything indicating a marine rush, I'll usually ignore zerglings and go straight to a roach/hydra combo. I find that is a pretty safe build for most terran strategies. -Paul
[2010-09-20 15:49:32] - Paul: Really, everything. I like banelings, but marine rushes are rare. I counter seiges with tunneling roaches (burrow is awesome), but I'm afraid if I spend on banelings and roaches that I'll be far enough behind that a straight tech will be able to beat me. Like...what is your generic plan when you face a terran? - Matt
[2010-09-20 15:49:01] - Matt: I also thinking scouting potential expansion places against Terran is important. Because it's hard to crack their shell sometimes, I try to prevent them from expanding as much as possible to starve them out. -Paul
[2010-09-20 15:41:17] - Matt: What kind of Terran forces are killing you? Banelings can be awesome against marines. I'm still not sure of a good strategy against seige tanks other than to overwhelm them with roaches and hydralisks, though. -Paul
[2010-09-20 15:34:51] - Well I'm in gold so I would keep that in mind but I think sometimes people will just fly an overlord in from the side to see whats inside the terran base even though its going to die. Changelings sometimes work if you can hide them by their buildings. -Daniel
[2010-09-20 15:29:59] - I'm pretty sure I've lost to basically every strat at this point. My main problem is with the guess-work against a terran. Because of that wall-in, I can't figure out what is going on until it's too late. I can have decent success if I muta harass, but I've also lost games where they teched straight to thors without me knowing... This is @ platinum btw - Matt
[2010-09-20 15:08:34] - are you losing to rushes? or late game? or both? What league are you in? If you are losing to terran in the diamond league then we should probably be asking you for help. -Daniel
[2010-09-20 14:39:24] - soo...gurkie said I could pester people (Paul) for some starcraft advice here. I started playing zerg, but I'm probably losing like 2 out of every 3 to terran -- what do you normally do vs them? - Matt
[2010-09-20 13:13:33] - mig: ah your qb is prob why my defense got 20 points... ~gurkie
[2010-09-20 13:09:08] - mig: oh wow thats bad... my 2 qbs this week got me a grand total of 6 points... Each league I have gotten 1 point from a qb... but definately not negative... ~gurkie
[2010-09-20 12:01:06] - Daniel: Yeah, I think it's $10 for the TJ league. -Paul
[2010-09-20 11:56:56] - gurkie: I don't want to hear any complaining about qbs unless your cumulitive score for your QBs is in the negative. - mig
[2010-09-20 11:45:32] - Paul: Aren't I supposed to pay you or someone at some point for the TJ league? -Daniel
[2010-09-20 11:45:10] - One of my fantasy teams has Flacco as QB and M. Turner and D Williams as the RB's. That team has been a disaster so far. My TJ team though has done alright though so thats a plus. -Daniel
[2010-09-20 11:25:26] - I hate my quarterbacks ~gurkie
[2010-09-20 10:59:00] - a: they don't have a lot of HP so if you're using something like 10 zealots to take out a hatchery, they'd be gone in one swipe (i think) - aaron
[2010-09-20 10:56:40] - i just don't see it always. like not every time i destroy a main building i see it. maybe i'm forgetting, but it seems like they're only sometimes a problem. ~a
[2010-09-20 10:53:44] - it does not, it's a default feautre of all main zerg buildings. - mig
[2010-09-20 09:57:54] - do broodlings come automatically? or do you have to research it? ~a
[2010-09-20 09:55:56] - the void seems like it was wasted in a way that i wouldn't have even considered. i think z deserved to win because the protoss wasted so much. also it's hard for me to say this 'cause i'm a protoss player. ~a
[2010-09-20 09:45:16] - xpovos: i love the part where both players first start chatting and they're like "uhhhh... what now. is there a way to draw?" - aaron
[2010-09-20 08:29:10] - pierce: shh, Paul's not supposed to know about him! - Stephen
[2010-09-19 17:06:26] - gurkie: is he at least the ruler of Omicron Persei 8? - pierce
[2010-09-19 16:38:18] - congrats! - aba
[2010-09-19 14:49:57] - a: just some guy ~gurkie
[2010-09-19 12:00:31] - it's gurkie! so who's the lucky guy? ~a
[2010-09-19 11:35:44] - a: thanks ~gurkie
[2010-09-18 19:22:21] - well congratulations regardless of who you are. ~a
[2010-09-18 19:18:04] - sorry about the duplicate posts I blame the phone
[2010-09-18 18:34:01] - ? ~a
[2010-09-18 18:19:53] - me duh
[2010-09-18 18:19:41] - me duh
[2010-09-18 18:00:38] -
~a[2010-09-18 17:53:53] - me duh
[2010-09-18 17:37:18] - who? ~a
[2010-09-18 17:31:21] - I am engaged
[2010-09-17 21:36:28] - aaron: I watched that SC2 video. Hilarious. -- Xpovos
[2010-09-17 17:32:04] - a: stephen doesn't exactly quite fit but he can go in the group on the left. meg is, to my knowledge, outside of the groups entirely. daniel i don't know well enough to say. -amy
[2010-09-17 17:23:41] - i am stumped. where would, say, stephen, or meg, or daniel be? ~a
[2010-09-17 16:09:31] - I think I know the outer circles but I can't figure out the inner one. - pierce
[2010-09-17 15:47:00] - yay! I got it... I think... but I had a clue ~gurkie
[2010-09-17 15:40:26] - gurkie: yes, you're very special
- vinnie[2010-09-17 15:34:49] - Im part of EVERY group! ~gurkie
[2010-09-17 15:33:34] - gurkie: you get your own group! - vinnie
[2010-09-17 15:28:26] - hrmm, this is difficult... ~gurkie
[2010-09-17 14:55:04] - amy: sorry i can't even get started - aaron
[2010-09-17 13:41:00] - amy: Nice one. It's going to take me a while to even get a frame of reference, I guess. -- Xpovos
[2010-09-17 13:21:31] - http://diotrans.com/random/venn.jpg -amy
[2010-09-17 12:55:03] - daniel: i've been waiting a long while to hear more about this when I first heard about it last year. NA release date is 10/5 - mig
[2010-09-17 12:43:11] - Best game trailer I've seen in... ever? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXV6oWKMcSU (japanese w/ subtitles). I wonder how long till it makes it to the US. -Daniel
[2010-09-17 12:28:07] - a: it's probably some problem with my browser. looking at it with the iphone seems to work fine. - mig
[2010-09-17 12:09:24] - a: i should clarify the issue. what's happening is that everytime I refresh, the divider will still show up in the same place. - mig
[2010-09-17 11:55:19] - Random question: I want to calculate a probability of an event occurring based on three independent tests. However, the odds for the tests are themselves unknowable, or at the very least definitely unknown. But the sample size is pretty large, so estimations could be made. What kind of process would be used to solve this algorithmically? -- Xpovos
[2010-09-17 11:07:36] - screenshot? ~a
[2010-09-17 10:51:14] - I can't tell if it's my browser or the site, but the new post divider seems to be malfunctioning. - mig
[2010-09-17 09:56:01] - a: good point. I missed that little detail - vinnie
[2010-09-17 09:32:41] - vinnie: g? isn't that meters/second2? ~a
[2010-09-17 09:17:55] - course that would be little g not big G - vinnie
[2010-09-17 09:17:01] - i got them all but only after i found out that "28 days later" was incorrect - aaron
[2010-09-17 09:16:04] - title: haha I thought #1 was a reference to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G - vinnie
[2010-09-17 09:08:30] - title: I never got around to calculating the last one (work was busy yesterday), but I like to think I would've gotten the song from 500 miles. My problems with #3 were documented here, though. -Paul
[2010-09-16 20:43:08] - I'm not sure if I should give myself credit for #4, the song ran through my head, but I didn't think it was 'right'. I got the others. -- Xpovos
[2010-09-16 19:20:51] - Did anyone get them all correctly?
[2010-09-16 19:09:29] - 39.3 m/s = Velocity relative to the ground required to travel through time; 604800 s = One week; 2443332 s = Amount of time until the world will end; 804672 m = I will walk this distance more -title
[2010-09-16 17:09:15] - confused there and they're? ~a
[2010-09-16 14:39:05] - across the street from eachother! - aaron
[2010-09-16 14:38:58] - this is where friends kabob is; i guess they're practically - aaron
[2010-09-16 14:25:50] - aaron: well Kabob House is on 7 near Tysons basically where 7 hits 123 in the plaza with Marshalls that CompUSA used to be in.. I got the veg combo and it was WAAAAY too much food, might be different with meat though. ~gurkie
[2010-09-16 13:50:12] - gurkie: no, "friends kabob". and they're only OK now, they shrunk their portions and upped their prices - aaron
[2010-09-16 13:05:35] - aaron: is Kabob House the kabob place you were telling me you liked? ~gurkie
[2010-09-16 13:04:46] - the whole section on the right was just blank... ~gurkie
[2010-09-16 13:02:56] - mig: I can now see it in Firefox, I was using IE and for some reason it just wasnt showing up at all. ~gurkie
[2010-09-16 13:00:57] - our company is hiring java developers if anybody knows anybody who's looking for a java development role in the mclean (soon to be reston) area - aaron
[2010-09-16 12:40:22] - google calendar changed the look of the interface somewhat recently, there's no more divided sections between yes/no/maybes. - mig
[2010-09-16 12:39:38] - gurkie: you cannot see the checkmarks by everyone who has said yes? - mig
prev <-> next