prev <-> next
[2014-11-18 10:14:15] - paul: i agree that having competition would be ideal. each household would have 10-20 different internet providers, and they'd pick the one which was the most "open" if they valued that, or the cheapest/sketchiest if they didn't. but it's also an unrealistic fix (or at least, a much longer term fix) - aaron
[2014-11-18 10:12:25] - correct. everything (perfect paul world too) depends on competition. without competition, the invisible hand of the market doesn't really exist. ~a
[2014-11-18 09:46:06] - a: Same thing with the "extortion". In my mind, the real issue is with competition and NN is a clumsy "fix" to try to address that. -Paul
[2014-11-18 09:40:54] - a: Assuming there is an alternative to leave you for, right? It seems to me that has to do more with competition than NN. -Paul
[2014-11-17 18:21:32] - PNNW: you add bandwidth because if you don't have enough bandwidth, your customers and peers get angry and leave you. ~a
[2014-11-17 18:05:12] - Have to run home from work, now, though. So we'll have to pick this up tomorrow.
-Paul[2014-11-17 18:04:53] - a: Seems like in AHW, they'll be adding bandwidth after they extort people, right? In PNNW, why would they even bother adding bandwidth at all? -Paul
[2014-11-17 18:04:13] - a: And I guess that's what I don't get. Why would the ISPs have more motivation to add bandwidth in PNNW (perfect net neutrality world) vs AHW? -Paul
[2014-11-17 18:02:02] - in the evil adrian hates world: ISPs would say: do we have enough bandwidth to support our customers and our peers? if yes, then who can we extort? if no, then who can we extort? ~a
[2014-11-17 18:01:16] - they do. ISPs have to worry about bandwidth in a different dimension. in a perfect net neutral world, they would say: do we have enough bandwidth to support our customers and our peers? if yes, then good job. if no, then add bandwidth! ~a
[2014-11-17 17:58:04] - a: Okay, so here is where my ignorance shows... do ISPs not have to worry about bandwidth? Am I using the wrong term? I'm talking about the website taking up too much room in their pipes.
-Paul[2014-11-17 17:54:24] - paul: in aaron's example telemedia limited is an ISP. ~a
[2014-11-17 17:53:25] - aaron: Why should who care? Telemedia Limited? Because the website is taking up a lot of their bandwidth? -Paul
[2014-11-17 17:51:43] - a: Sure, I understand we're talking about different business models. My point was more that we seem to accept the idea of an entity like Netflix paying extra for using more "stuff" than everybody else when it comes to other areas, so this doesn't seem outrageous to me. -Paul
[2014-11-17 17:28:56] - paul: what doesn't make sense is that if, in addition to paying an extra $50/month, they also have to to pay $75 to Telemedia Limited because their web site suddenly became popular in Belize for some reason. why should they care? they're just a web site, they have customers all over the world, and now they have to pay money to different ISPs? - aaron
[2014-11-17 17:26:31] - paul: yes, that's right. they would pay their web hosting site extra money, or buy some upgraded package for extra bandwidth. that makes sense - aaron
[2014-11-17 17:17:52] - paul: iow, they want peering to be a boolean thing. you're either peered or you aren't. you can't do this shit where you peer but you only allow certain things in at certain speeds. ~a
[2014-11-17 17:16:40] - paul: having different service plans for connecting to the internet (getting on the internet, the $50/month in your example) is different than having different service plans once you're on the internet (peering). ~a
[2014-11-17 17:15:21] - paul: "Net neutrality is the principle that ISPs should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication" ~a
[2014-11-17 17:08:23] - Aaron: I mean, if some web-hosting site had millions of people paying $50 a month for web-hosting, but one person was eating up a bunch of their bandwidth (relative to the other users), it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for them to ask that person to buy some upgraded package for $100. -Paul
[2014-11-17 17:06:17] - aaron: As for your aporter analogy, don't a lot of web hosting sites put limits on the number of visitors you can have in a month or put bandwidth caps on (unless you buy an upgraded package, of course)? Isn't that the same thing as what you're saying (except you are being charge by a different company)? -Paul
[2014-11-17 17:03:14] - Aaron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotting_fee Your library analogy might not be as flawed as you think. Sure, Rowling would never have to pay for shelf space at a library (anymore), but when the power dynamic is flipped, I'm not sure it's such a crazy idea. -Paul
[2014-11-17 17:01:08] - aaron: Fedex controls the number of trucks on the road as much as Netflix controls how much bandwidth they use. In theory both COULD not ship somebody's package/show the movie, but both are basically at the whim of customers. -Paul
[2014-11-17 16:48:22] - paul: but fedex controls whether or not their trucks use the road. aporter.org doesn't decide whether or not users visit his web site. one day, 100,000 people visit aporter.org and suddenly he's responsible for a lot of extra internet traffic. is that fair? does that mean he has to pay a lot of extra money? - aaron
[2014-11-17 16:47:07] - paul: a different and equally flawed analogy might describe the internet as a library. customers to the library are frustrated that there's only one copy of harry potter, so the library buys several more copies. then they decide, "well j.k rowling should pay us. she's taking up a lot more shelf space in our library compared to other books" - aaron
[2014-11-17 16:45:29] - aaron: Well, to extend that analogy, I guess it would be if some owner of a road decided to charge a toll on Fedex because their trucks accounted for some big percentage of traffic on their road. I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea, but it doesn't seem to be an outrageous idea. -Paul
[2014-11-17 16:44:20] - aaron: You don't think Netflix is using the internet too? I guess I don't see the big difference. I remember one Net Neutrality video which tried to use a shipping company (like UPS or Fedex) to explain why Net Neutrality was a good idea. -Paul
[2014-11-17 16:42:15] - paul: yeah, i don't accept that analogy, because i perceive internet users as... um... users. users are the ones using the internet. it's a 2-way communication channel and maybe both sides should pay, but it's just a perceptual change to me, i can't really wrap my head around it. - aaron
[2014-11-17 15:14:57] - have you guys heard of openworm? in may, researchers used 47 hours of compute time to simulate .3 seconds of "worm time". this worm has 1000 cells, 300 of which are neurons (6,000 connections between the neurons). imo, it's pretty badass we're simulating a brain, even if it's a super simple brain. ~a
[2014-11-17 14:34:22] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html A self-described liberal democrat for Rand Paul. -Paul
[2014-11-17 14:28:52] - Aaron: In most areas of life, if you use a lot more of something than everybody else, you usually have to pay more. I know it's not a perfect analogy, because the users are already paying on one end, but I don't think that changes much. -Paul
[2014-11-17 14:27:25] - Aaron: I'm still on the fence about net neutrality, but I just see a lot of risky downside to this in return for precious little upside. Netflix has to pay some ISPs for using a huge amount of their bandwidth? Frankly, I don't care too much. In fact, that makes some sense to me. -Paul
[2014-11-17 14:24:51] - aaron: The trend that I've noticed is that government makes rules to "fix" a current problem, but almost never gets rid of that rule when it ceases to be a problem. Instead, when later problems pop up (maybe problems caused by the original rules), more rules are made to "fix" those problems. -Paul
[2014-11-17 14:23:13] - aaron: Right, it doesn't necessarily change the argument over what is happening now (just adds another thing to consider). I think the concern is that it sounds reasonable to say, "Let's just make rules now and change them later", but that's not often how government works. -Paul
[2014-11-17 13:52:24] - paul: i could play the slippery slope card and say, "oh if we don't do anything then some day, google and apple and hulu plus will all need to pay Verizon money in order to operate, and the internet will fundamentally change" but, i don't even think the slippery slope thing is necessary. this is something that's already happening right now that is bad - aaron
[2014-11-17 13:50:40] - if this were 10 years ago, i'd agree with you, i wouldn't care about net neutrality and I'd say "let the ISPs handle it, who cares, everything's fine" but i really don't like this netflix/fios/verizon stuff and i don't like the idea of web sites having to pay ISPs money to deliver content to customers - aaron
[2014-11-17 13:49:50] - paul: but what about current consequences, like verizon and comcast asking netflix to pay them money? to me it seems silly to say, "what about those potential problems ISPs might have in the future" while ignoring the actual problems which are happening now. - aaron
[2014-11-17 13:47:41] - paul: i think that's a good point about theoretical, potential future "what-if" consequences. maybe some day those will be important and we'll be shackled by our new internet laws, and for some reason we won't be able to change them (?) - aaron
[2014-11-17 12:46:26] - http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/17/politics/twitter-republicans-outside-groups/ somewhat fascinating, and at the same time reinforcing to me why campaign finance laws are utterly silly. - mgi
[2014-11-17 11:15:54] - just because they're worried that they might not be able to watch a movie in as high of resolution as they "should" be able to. -Paul
[2014-11-17 11:15:27] - He's got a good point that we have no idea what awesome things we might get from the internet even 5-10 years from now, but people are clamoring for all these rules and regulations (with all the unintended consequences that come with them) by a government that almost everybody agree would be bad at the job... -Paul
[2014-11-17 11:14:07] - http://blogmaverick.com/2014/11/16/my-conversation-with-business-insider-about-net-neutrality/ More Mark Cuban on Net Neutrality. I don't agree with everything he says, but I did think he had an interesting perspective on it when he spoke about the unknown potential of the internet. -Paul
[2014-11-17 10:17:36] - Aaron: I almost feel like those polls have to first ask, "Do you know what Net Neutrality is" and THEN ask if they support it or not (without any other info). You'll still have people who misunderstand what Net Neutrality is, but at least you should get a better idea of where people stand. -Paul
[2014-11-14 18:14:22] - paul: yeah, i agree with you. i would say, "the government regulates the labor market," and "the government should regulate ISPs," those are accurate. i wouldn't say "the government regulates religion" or "the government should regulate the internet," i think those are equally misleading - aaron
[2014-11-14 16:42:42] - Aaron: Depending on your political leanings, one probably sounds more biased than the other. Same thing here. Net neutrality IS government regulation of the internet, but it's also "just" saying ISPs should treat data equally. Two different spins for the same position. -Paul
[2014-11-14 16:40:54] - Aaron: Or, maybe it is pejorative. I dunno. I guess it depends on your POV, which I guess was my original point. You can describe taxes completely factually as the government forcibly taking your money, or you could (again, completely factually) describe it as the fee people pay for government services. -Paul
[2014-11-14 16:38:21] - Aaron: Ah, okay. Sorry. I misunderstood what you were saying, then. I more agree with that. I don't think it's pejorative to say the government regulates the labor market, though (in the sense that they say you can't discriminate based on religion). -Paul
[2014-11-14 16:35:03] - paul: i was thinking more in line of the subject of the poll question wording. - mig
[2014-11-14 16:24:17] - paul: i didn't mean to imply "the government treats all data equally", i don't think i said that or implied it in any way. the government doesn't merely treat all religions equally, they also have laws against other people/companies discriminating based on religion as well - aaron
[2014-11-14 16:23:22] - paul: i think that's what I said, "the government forces ISPs to treat all traffic equally" -- just like how the government forces everybody to treat all religions equally, with things like the civil rights act - aaron
[2014-11-14 15:23:13] - mig: I have been following the Gruber stuff some. You think it's relevant to net neutrality? -Paul
[2014-11-14 15:22:47] - Aaron: To me, a more appropriate analogy (using religion still) would be if the government forced everybody to believe all religions were equally true, or something like that. Maybe we all would have to give up beef and pork and wear crosses or something. -Paul
[2014-11-14 15:21:37] - Aaron: I don't think I agree with what you're saying. It's not just the government treating all data equally (in the same way it's supposed to treat religions equally). It's the government forcing everybody else to treat data equally. -Paul
[2014-11-14 14:17:55] - paul: i don't know if you've been following the jon gruber fiasco going on right now, but that seems relevant to this too. - mig
[2014-11-14 14:09:47] - paul: i mean, is it "regulating the internet" if the government forces ISPs to treat all traffic equally, absent of censorship? does the government "regulate our religion" too? i guess technically, it's just a really pejorative way of phrasing it - aaron
[2014-11-14 12:55:01] - Aaron: "Should the government more closely regulate the internet?" and "Should all data be treated equally on the internet?" are reasonable ways to describe the two positions, but people probably have knee-jerk reactions to each question. -Paul
[2014-11-14 12:54:18] - Aaron: Could be. I also just think it's the way questions were phrased (and not just ambiguity), though. You could put forth two factually correct questions regarding net neutrality that would probably get very different results. -Paul
[2014-11-14 12:24:46] - paul: i think i see the problem, people thought they were supposed to choose one side or the other for question #2 but it was intended as a yes or no question. my answer is definitely "no" - aaron
[2014-11-14 10:56:13] - Aaron: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/questions/november_2014/questions_net_neutrality_november_11_12_2014 I didn't see that specific phrase here, but I'm not surprised these questions led to the responses the article mentioned. -Paul
[2014-11-14 10:36:51] - paul: that's a really stupidly worded question. i hope they didn't actually ask people, "do you think the internet should remain free of censorship" as a way of determining public opinion on net neutrality - aaron
[2014-11-14 10:34:55] - g: cool! it's weird how many theme songs they've done -- they've deliberately written 18 theme songs, and they have 24 other songs which are incidentally used as theme songs... meh.com isn't even on this list yet! - aaron
[2014-11-14 10:28:26] - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/november_2014/61_oppose_federal_regulation_of_the_internet My first response was shock and disbelief, but after reading into it some, it sounds like this has a lot to do with how the question was worded. -Paul
[2014-11-14 10:10:31] - aaron: TMBG's wrote a theme song for meh.com not sure if you have listened to it yet. Paul and I like the site... its by the guys who did woot and is basically the same thing. ~g
[2014-11-14 10:08:58] - a: the only thing i didn't understand -- they had one joke where the oculus rift tech support mentioned that they were issuing a total recall of all devices, and one of the kids goes "ohhh fuck you" and then later there was a similar joke with something like, "grounded vindaloop" and i didn't know if that was a reference i missed - aaron
[2014-11-14 10:08:11] - a: i loved the episode, it reminded me of the "Super Fun Time" episode that parodied Die Hard. it was really more of a parody of Total Recall than anything current. i tend to like those kinds of episodes more than their topical episodes - aaron
[2014-11-13 23:14:13] - a starcraft character dancing in the night. singularity charge increases attack range from 4 to 6? ~a
[2014-11-13 22:36:14] - https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/content_folder_media/q9/Q9WE2V7MHOBC1415235474824.jpg do you see what i see? - mig
[2014-11-13 20:47:49] - g: southpark just had an episode about oculus rift. it was actually a pretty cool episode. ~a
[2014-11-13 14:38:45] - aaron: Really surprised it's that small. I feel like I could easily eat more than 3.7 donut holes per donut I ate... -Paul
[2014-11-13 14:36:16] - Honestly, I'm not entirely sure I see the comparison (I've read Atlas Shrugged and Anthem, but not the Fountainhead). I've seen situations that I thought much more closely paralleled Ayn Rand before net neutrality. -Paul
[2014-11-13 14:34:37] - 3. The "People" want more gov to protect them so they cant be stopped from getting movies/tv shows OTT.That is straight out of Ayn Rand 4. If Ayn Rand were an up and coming author today, she wouldnt write about steel or railroads, it would be net neutrality 5. Who is John Galt -Paul
[2014-11-13 14:34:16] - 1. the speed/quality of our home/phone broadband has improved dramatically. We have new tech/apps/clouds/IOT every day. Its working. 2. In my adult life i have never seen a situation that paralleled what I read in Ayn Rands books until now with Net Neutrality -Paul
[2014-11-13 14:33:29] - Wow, Cuban is continuing to go off on net neutrality today on twitter, including comparing it to an Ayn Rand novel... -Paul
[2014-11-13 14:30:54] - paul: i'm not particularly offended either, but also find it lacking in humor. I just found it an odd group to pick on for TDS. - mig
[2014-11-13 14:24:23] - paul: by the way the correct answer is 3.7 apparently? a donut is the nutritional equivalent of 3.7 donut holes at dunkin donuts. that's about what i would have guessed if i were going by volume... but i figured donut holes had to be smaller, given that i could eat so many of them - aaron
[2014-11-13 11:48:29] - a: try this out with your oculus rift... https://share.oculus.com/app/alien-makeout-simulator I know the guy who created it... ~g
[2014-11-13 10:57:42] - Aaron: Hehehe, nice one. -Paul
[2014-11-13 10:51:20] - paul: oh, i did that first and came up with a much smaller number, so i went with my gut - aaron
[2014-11-13 10:37:00] - aaron: I wasn't thinking of it that way. I was trying to envision a donut and how many donut holes I thought could fit inside one.
-Paul[2014-11-13 10:34:48] - paul: see that sounds about right. i could get full on about 2 donuts, and about 13-or-so donut holes. they're like potato chips, where i could go through a whole bag without thinking about it - aaron
[2014-11-13 10:31:31] - paul: yeah, i'm OK with humor being really offensive as long as it's really funny. that was a tiny bit offensive, but not at all funny, so i don't know. i think it's stupid but i still don't find it particularly offensive - aaron
[2014-11-13 10:29:06] - mig: I didn't find it overly offensive, but I also didn't find it particularly funny. In fact, I'm more offended by how unfunny it is.
-Paul[2014-11-13 10:27:46] - aaron: I think it's more than that. Maybe 6.7? -Paul
[2014-11-13 10:26:06] - without looking up the answer, how many donut holes equals one donut? my guess is 5.3 - aaron
[2014-11-13 10:10:41] - https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/531990460206555136 thoughts? - mig
[2014-11-12 17:57:02] - As to my UN comment, I feel the UN is completely irrelevent in attempting to enforce it's goals on laws enforced for and entirely within sovereign states. This kind of statement just points that out in a laughable way. At least, that's my take. So relevency goes down as a factor of credibility. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-12 17:55:13] - a: I've been considering what I could offer you that would be compelling to me, but unoffensive to you. So if I do eventually bring you an offer (and I hope to) if it's offensively low, just laugh at me and don't actually be offended, please. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-12 15:55:28] - paul: no, you're right, mostly. The first dragon age was really clunky in terms of gameplay if you aren't used to or like CRPGs in general. DA2's gameplay was much more palatable (though not without problems of its own), but storywise was really lacking. - mig
[2014-11-12 15:30:29] - xpovos: sorry, that was to you. also sorry, paul. xpovos, i assume no messages means you aren't interested in an unopened xbox? ~a
[2014-11-12 15:12:52] - a: Wrong person.
If anybody is following Mark Cuban on twitter, though, he's actually talking a little bit about net neutrality now. His stance appears to be more nuanced, but I think he's largely against it. -Paul[2014-11-12 14:55:19] - paul: how does this make the u.n. less relevant? i wonder, though, what the u.n. thinks about bangladesh, north korea, czech republic, portugal, uruguay, and the netherlands? (thanks, wikipedia) ~a
[2014-11-12 14:51:21] - microsoft puts .net's source code up on github what the fuck? somebody at microsoft decided to rewrite what it means to be microsoft. how long until we see the source code to windows8 or office on github? ~a
[2014-11-12 14:33:00] - mig: I'm also concerned about the comparisons to Dragon Age: Origins. I never ended up finishing that game (despite enjoying the story) because I had such issues with the game mechanics. I actually (blasphemy, I know) preferred DA2 in that respect. -Paul
[2014-11-12 14:31:49] - mig: Cool. I'll be interested in talking with you about it after you've played it some. I'm hoping the bugs will get ironed out before I get around to playing it, but the story concerns me. I was really hoping for a compelling story, and even the glowing reviews seem to gloss over it as if it's unimportant. -paul
[2014-11-12 14:23:08] - Could the UN be less relevent? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/12/us-usa-drugs-un-idUSKCN0IW1GV20141112 -- Xpovos
[2014-11-12 14:21:19] - Paul: I'm still stuck on the first Dragon Age and have a massive backlog, so no plans to get it anytime soon. But it does look great and I'm hearing some positive things. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-12 14:00:46] - paul: it's already been pre-ordered. 2 complaints I've seen is story and some annoying bugs. I'm not too worried. The former is subjective, the latter can be corrected. - mig
[2014-11-12 13:35:36] - Wondering if anybody here is planning on getting Dragon Age: Inquisition. I've got a backlog of games to play, but I'm eyeing it enviously. The reviews have me a little worried, though, despite them being generally positive. -Paul
[2014-11-12 09:42:32] - the ironic thing is, isn't this proposal to classify broadband as a public utility going to ensure that there is no competition? - mig
[2014-11-11 11:16:27] - "We don’t need net neutrality; we need competition" omg, yes. i like the title, so i'm going to stop reading there. ~a
[2014-11-11 11:15:58] - i think what we all want is some common sense regulation.
~a[2014-11-11 11:15:43] - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/we-dont-need-net-neutrality-we-need-competition/ This article is a little long, but I enjoyed it. The first half especially talks some about the problems that I see with the standard net neutrality arguments. -Paul
[2014-11-11 11:12:10] - Because, make no mistake about it, that is what net neutrality advocates are ultimately asking for. -Paul
[2014-11-11 11:11:39] - a: I also think I agree with the spirit behind Net Neutrality, but I just don't see any easy way to enforce such a thing, and subtlety is not the government's strong suit. I am also VERY leery of having the government regulate the internet. -Paul
[2014-11-11 11:01:59] - a: I don't necessarily disagree. I think the very broad concepts of net neutrality is good as a general guideline/goal. I just have no faith that government will create rules that will get the advocates the internet playground that they want, or that the internet will be doomed as an open platform if we don't have these rules. - mig
[2014-11-11 10:55:37] - mig/paul: well . . . without answering your questions, let's just say that i'm still of the opinion that net neutrality is good in general, but i'm not sure the government should be going in and doing something specific about it. i think having more information would be nice though: can someone please tell me which companies are throttling and how much? ~a
[2014-11-11 10:49:16] - paul: at least you're not commonly mistaken as a fire breathing ayn rand acolyte. - mig
[2014-11-11 10:44:28] - a: That's a good example of why I think you sometimes think I am more conservative than I am. When I debate with liberals, I tend to sound more conservative. When I debate with conservatives, I tend to sound more liberal. -Paul
[2014-11-11 10:43:19] - a: Well, the receptionist heard me, and I think took me seriously, and we had a brief discussion about Obamacare.
-Paul[2014-11-11 10:43:06] - mig/paul: it's weird. i'm having a conversation with my dad and his nephew (my cousin) and i'm making the argument that net neutrality shouldn't be regulated
actually, that's not weird at all. i'm always in-between you guys and the actual liberals. ~a[2014-11-11 10:42:57] - a: That reminds me of a joke I made one time at the doctor's office. I was with Gurkie as she was paying for her doctor's bill, and something seemed more expensive than it should be, so I glibly said, "I blame Obamacare" (it was my go-to joke that month). -Paul
[2014-11-11 10:41:49] - a: Then tomorrow, Netflix decides it needs faster speeds to show 4k resolution videos to it's customers, and it has the technology/money to do it. Would these rules make it illegal for them to do that? -Paul
[2014-11-11 10:41:31] - mig: "thanks obama" was a joke. it's usually said sarcastically about something that obama has ruined. in this case, though, i was just being silly. ~a
[2014-11-11 10:40:31] - paul: actually probably. i'm only talking about it because of the oatmeal and that it was posted to my facebook. you're probably right that the president saying stuff -> ted cruz being an idiot on twitter -> the oatmeal comic. but i only understand that now. ~a
[2014-11-11 10:40:30] - Also, here's another thing I don't quite understand about net neutrality. Wouldn't it essentially make improving the internet impossible? Assume we implement every net neutrality proponent's wet dream, and we magically make it so that all data is treated equally and goes everywhere equally fast somehow. -Paul
[2014-11-11 10:39:01] - a: I assumed that's why we were talking about it.
-Paul[2014-11-11 10:31:16] - a: i want to know exactly what these rules are, and how they potentially will affect things. These rules aren't going to be as simple as "all data must be treated equally". - mig
[2014-11-11 10:29:22] - mig: comcast intentionally throttling is this a detail? the FCC won the first case, lost the second case, but also i think whether comcast was throttling was something that was a given. ~a
[2014-11-11 10:26:39] - Then why should I be thanking him when I don't even know how the actual rules will affect anything? I mean, it's nice of him to say things like "open and free" internet, but he also said, "if you like your plan you can keep it". - mig
[2014-11-11 10:24:40] - i don't have any. ~a
[2014-11-11 10:21:49] - a: again, nice sounding platitudes. details please? - mig
[2014-11-11 10:20:03] - mig/paul: thanks obama. very timely update, huh? ~a
[2014-11-11 10:12:04] - paul: even assuming that 2nd question mattered, why can't we ask the same of Netflix. Why do they "need" their money? - mig
[2014-11-11 10:06:08] - a: Are you saying the peering agreements would be free to implement or something? -Paul
[2014-11-11 10:05:48] - a: I am assuming the first (which I fully admit could be wrong, but I don't think there is much evidence of actual purposeful throttling of this type that people can point to). I'm not assuming the second. Why does it matter it Comcast "needs" the money or not? -Paul
[2014-11-11 09:55:21] - "which multi-billion dollar company should pay money to improve the experience of both their customers" you're assuming comcast wasn't intentionally throttling netflix? you're assuming comcast needed that money to peer with netflix? if both of those are "yes" then i guess i can't disagree with you, but i have a feeling that at least one (both) of those is "no". ~a
[2014-11-11 09:33:20] - a: I mean, I don't fully understand how the internet works, but I know it's not as simple as a series of tubes. There are direct connections and paid connections and other arrangements already which runs counter to the ideal of net neutrality but nobody seems to have an issue with them. -Paul
[2014-11-11 09:32:40] - a: are you talking about in the same vein like Glenn Beck apologizing for supporting the Iraq war? - mig
[2014-11-11 09:21:28] - a: So instead of it being some idealistic debate over equal data or whatever, it was really just a question of which multi-billion dollar company should pay money to improve the experience of both their customers. -Paul
[2014-11-11 09:20:51] - I mean, "all data must be treated equal" sounds nice, but I'm not sure it's even possible, or even desirable. - mig
[2014-11-11 09:20:09] - a: Gross oversimplification, but if I understood the article properly, Netflix wanted Comcast to create some direct connections between the two companies (instead of going through third parties) which would (A) increase speed but also (B) cost Comcast money to implement. -Paul
[2014-11-11 09:18:43] - a: There was a good Ars Technica article (which I can't find now) which went into some detail regarding how those agreements between Netflix and Verizon/Comcast aren't as simple as they appear (ie, it's not just Comcast holding bandwidth hostage until Netflix pays up). -Paul
[2014-11-11 09:17:18] - a: Unfortunately, I don't feel I know enough about how the internet works to know if that's accurate (and it's frustrating, because I feel like the issue can't be as black and white as often presented). -Paul
[2014-11-11 09:16:05] - The problem I keep having with Net Neutrality is that it's a bunch of nice sounding platitudes but very sparse on the details on how to actually accomplish it. - mig
[2014-11-10 22:05:31] - a: I won't say it's inaccurate per se, but perhaps oversimplified. - mig
[2014-11-10 18:17:36] - a couple people posted this the oatmeal to my facebooks. what do you think? is it an accurate description? ~a
[2014-11-10 16:47:50] - jon has been fairly liberal-ish over the past 15 years. he has often referred to the ppaca as a generally good-thing. let's say, hypothetically, he apologized for having done this. would you be happy that he had apologized? ~a
[2014-11-10 15:20:51] - a: going to need more context? like he made fun of people opposing the law? - mig
[2014-11-10 12:41:51] - mig: hmmm. well i don't disagree with that in general. question . . . would you care if he was apologizing for a thing that you agreed with? i.e. hypothetically, if stuart apologized to his audience for promoting the "failed" ppaca? ~a
[2014-11-10 12:03:09] - a: I would argue apologies of this specific ilk do have a cost. Comedy as a whole suffers, I think, when things like this happen, and that makes me sad. - mig
[2014-11-10 11:47:07] - mig: apologies are free. i apologize for shit that wasn't my fault all the time. iow, "i'm sorry i was so confusing, and here's what i meant" doesn't cost you anything to say. ~a
[2014-11-10 11:19:38] - a: sure i get the whole misunderstood part. I just don't understand why clarifying the record meant having to apologize. - mig
[2014-11-10 10:55:50] - "It felt to me like he just wanted to make sure he wasn't misunderstood" i'm with paul here. he went on a non-comedy show to talk about serious issues and he didn't want to be misunderstood. ~a
[2014-11-10 10:55:36] - "rare for him to do that on his own show" yes, rare, but he's done it before. it isn't unprecedented. i don't think this is a sacred topic you can't joke about. honestly, they joke about voting all the time on their own show. ~a
[2014-11-10 10:33:54] - paul: yeah, I can see that to a point ... but he does get into his super serious mode (also, rare for him to do that on his own show), and in his apology also makes it seem like he committed some sort of serious transgression with his joke. - mig
[2014-11-10 10:32:51] - I feel like a bit of a third wheel here, so I'll just throw in my opinion and then back out: I thought it felt a little awkward because Stewart has always made a big deal about how he's a comedian, and so he should be judged by different standards. Considering the other things he's joked about, why can't he joke about this? -Paul
[2014-11-10 10:29:04] - again, is this some sacred topic that we should never joke about? - mig
[2014-11-10 10:28:42] - and yes, it would have been sadder if the apology felt more forced, but I think it's sad he even felt the need to apologize for this in the first place. - mig
[2014-11-10 10:26:47] - a: what, exactly did he have to apologize for? - mig
[2014-11-10 10:26:18] - mig: i was glad he apologized. it shows that even he makes mistakes and even better is willing to recognize those mistakes. it would make me sad, if i thought he was forced into this apology: it actually did seem sincere and i hope it was. ~a
[2014-11-10 10:23:50] - mig: I didn't see it as him grovelling for forgiveness (I don't know if anybody really was offended that he would joke about that). It felt to me like he just wanted to make sure he wasn't misunderstood. -Paul
[2014-11-10 09:56:15] - I'm not even sure I've ever seen Stewart even make any sort of apologies of anything he's ever said, and to see him have to sort of grovel for forgiveness over a joke that was so benign is just so weird. - mig
[2014-11-10 09:52:54] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/jon-stewart-didnt-vote-apologizes-voting_n_6107140.html I found this whole episode kind of sad. It looked really strange seeing Stewart make one of those lame walk-back apologies (even lamer that it looked like he was being sincere). Is voting really one of those sacred topics that thou shalt never jest about? - mig
[2014-11-09 23:16:48] - yeah I heard nobody was hurt. that being said, I hope the fire wasn't intentional. ~a
[2014-11-09 15:46:14] - Not thrilled with the source on this, but interesting story all the same: http://qz.com/293418/an-enormous-bitcoin-mine-went-up-in-flames-affecting-the-entire-network/ -- Xpovos
[2014-11-08 18:01:37] - mig: Spectator mode, finally! -- Xpovos
[2014-11-08 01:31:35] - omg it's coming out next month. - mig
[2014-11-08 01:27:38] - speaking of which they just announced a 120 card expansion coming ... not sure when. - mig
[2014-11-07 11:02:08] - Ironically, playing in unranked mode, you can get crushed more often because a lot of really good players play in unranked mode because the game has some strange rewards for them to do so. And you could, if you're unlucky, just play against those kinds of people 10 or 20 games in a row. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-07 11:01:17] - a: aaron has the right of it. The game can very quickly get frustrating if you're seeing the same decks over and over again (and that happens sometimes) but playing in 'ranked' mode generally pits you against other players that have similar quality cards/skill level; at least over time. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-07 09:36:47] - a: it's fun figuring out the best strategies and collecting cards. it's sometimes unfun if it feels like your opponents all have better cards and are copying decks from websites. - aaron
[2014-11-07 09:36:25] - a: it is fun, free, and it has a good tutorial. you can play a few games against the AI and decide if you like it. it's like magic where you win by building better decks and collecting stronger cards than your opponent. - aaron
[2014-11-07 09:27:50] - a: Huh, I thought Reason (or maybe Cato) had a very similar article headline. Very surprised to see it in the Washington Post. -Paul
[2014-11-07 07:25:35] - a: Not much, the closer analogy is Magic. It is a lot of fun, though. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-06 22:53:47] - this game sounds fun. is it anything like dominion? ~a
[2014-11-06 22:29:55] - I need to record more of my Hearthstone. Funny moment, My Hunter vs his priest. I can give the whole game. I'm first. Webspinner. Northshire Cleric. Hunter's Mark->Trade. (I get a Hungry Crab, but it doesn't matter). Mad Scientist. Coin, Deathlord. Eaglehorn Bow Hunter's Mark, weapon the Deathlord. Free Highmane. "I will hunt you down." Concede. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-06 21:42:04] - Paul: You're going to love mine: Conservative Libertarian Total-Isolationist Moderate. How is a "Total-Isolationist" in any way a "Moderate"? I realize they're describing different traits in this quiz, but it's still ridiculous. Also, why is mine only 5 descriptors? I have 5 scores... -- Xpovos
[2014-11-06 18:28:12] - washington post: how the fbi just made the world a more dangerous place by shutting down silkroad 2.0 and a bunch of online drug markets. that's a bold assertion, wapo. ~a
[2014-11-06 15:47:38] - mig: Especially since, if they listened to the whole interview, they would know he was cautioning about not overreacting. Definitely agree, though, that there appears to have been pre-existing bad blood on both sides before this. -Paul
[2014-11-06 15:43:45] - paul: i guess it's "poor form" but it definitely was a scuzzy move on the part of mike and mike. I'd be pissed too. I'm going to guess there's been some past bad blood between them, given the tone of Bill's response. - mig
[2014-11-06 14:45:59] - Also, apparently Bill Simmons just loves being suspended by ESPN. He just went on a twitter rant against Mike Golic (from Mike and Mike) about how he has no respect for the show and it's garbage and pathetic. -Paul
[2014-11-06 14:19:02] - http://www.abtirsi.com/quiz2.php "You are a: Objectivist Anarchist Isolationist Cosmopolitan Progressive". Cosmopolitan? That doesn't sound right. -Paul
[2014-11-06 12:00:39] - New York FBI twitter feed: Operator of Silk Road 2.0, Blake Benthall, arrested yesterday by FBI agents in San Francisco, CA. wow. ~a
[2014-11-06 10:26:35] - it's like a 15-way tie for me, between everything in the west coast and everything in the new england area. virginia is light pink - aaron
[2014-11-05 16:31:50] - a: Nope. Sorry! -Paul
[2014-11-05 16:26:05] - North Dakota still wins out for me. Not a bad fit, honestly. Newcomers are Nebraska and ... Texas? -- Xpovos
[2014-11-05 16:17:15] - paul: do you have information about ride sharing broken down by state?
~a[2014-11-05 16:15:02] - Not to say that I care about Uber more than abortion or gay marriage in general, but that it would affect my life more. -Paul
[2014-11-05 16:14:25] - a: Not really, considering I think I gave the exact same answers to both. It's more the lack of other questions (which you can't fix). It may sound silly, but in the sense of determining where I would like to live, I might actually care more about whether the place allows Uber than whether it allows abortions/gay marriage. -Paul
[2014-11-05 16:13:49] - a: that would probably make the results less skewy, yes. - mig
[2014-11-05 16:12:35] - yeah I guess I echo paul's statement. Like for instance, I'm feel pretty strongly about abolishing the death penalty, but whether the state government allows the death penalty or not is probably not going to be a factor in where I live. - mig
[2014-11-05 16:10:44] - i've considered combining the first two questions. would that help address your issue? ~a
[2014-11-05 16:10:08] - a: In my mind, to be somewhat accurate, it would have to be a poll like yours with at least 20 or so questions. -Paul
[2014-11-05 16:09:32] - a: Oh, I know, I was more referring to the fact that a bunch of those questions seemed focused on those two issues. Completely understand how it's limited by the data and I don't blame you for it at all. Just pointing out the limits of something like this. -Paul
[2014-11-05 16:04:43] - paul: no the map lets you decide what's a hot button issue and what isn't. i mean, i understand that i don't ask questions that you might care about, but seriously this is all the data i could find. ~a
[2014-11-05 16:03:13] - a: I suspect your hot-button issues and mig's are very different. For instance, I don't hugely care that I live in a state with abortion restrictions or that doesn't recognize same sex marriage. Do I wish it were otherwise? Sure, but it's not a hot-button issue for me in terms of where I live. -Paul
[2014-11-05 16:01:29] - why. ~a
[2014-11-05 15:59:48] - a: Do I consider the state level government of NY to be less bad than NYC. Yeah I'll say so. But I find the NY state gov to be bad. - mig
[2014-11-05 15:57:40] - mig: answered differently: you noticed the "sources" section at the bottom, right? you can click on each map and clearly see why you got green for new-york. ~a
[2014-11-05 15:57:35] - Virginia still fairly red for me. In fact, most of the country is red-tinted. Apparently I need to live in Maine or Colorado? Both of those places sound fine... -Paul
[2014-11-05 15:51:14] - mig: ok why? i only made the map with the data i had. if there are other questions (with answers for each state), i can incorporate them. . . . as an aside, new york state and new york city are very different politically. ~a
[2014-11-05 15:45:24] - I'm pretty certain I would never want to live in New York, yet it's green for me. - mig
[2014-11-05 15:43:02] - a: I think most democrats probably consider last night's results an apocalyptic scenario, which they also blame on citizen's united. - mig
[2014-11-05 15:41:39] - http://aporter.org/states/ updated with newest datas! virginia just got a lot less red for me. ~a
[2014-11-05 14:37:36] - a: http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/03/reasontv-3-reasons-not-to-swea You can look at the first few paragraphs for some. -Paul
[2014-11-05 14:17:27] - ARIES (Mar. 21 - Apr. 19) Be cheerful today. People who don't like you will outnumber those who do. You have warts. Focus on domestic status, financial matters, and venereal disease. Look for involvement with Libra or Aquarius natives; probably a fistfight with one of each.
[2014-11-05 14:16:44] - paul: i don't know about these "apocalyptic scenarios" you're referring to. most of the scenarios i envision are hard to measure and study. ~a
[2014-11-05 14:13:46] - But, again, we've been over this before. So no need to do it again. How about that Hollaback video?
-Paul[2014-11-05 14:13:06] - In fact, an argument could be made that we're hearing a bigger diversity of opinions because of Citizen's United. The ability for deep pockets to keep more candidates in races for longer means more voices are heard. -Paul
[2014-11-05 14:12:08] - a: I think part of it is my continued inability to see why Citizen's United is such a hot button topic for so many people. We've had it for awhile and democracy hasn't ended. None of those apocalyptic scenarios played out. Things have gone on mostly like they have in the past. -Paul
[2014-11-05 14:11:18] - Virginia has a democrat governor and Maryland has a republican one. These are strange times. - mig
[2014-11-05 14:10:43] - what the fuck happened in Maryland? that was pretty shocking. - mig
[2014-11-05 14:03:04] - paul: np. in case you're curious about more things adrian, i usually keep the "things" section of this page updated. ~a
[2014-11-05 13:59:43] - Sorry. I guess my memory is going (this isn't the first time I've rehashed previous debates). I was a little surprised it was on your list, but I figured you were against. I just wanted to confirm. -Paul
[2014-11-05 13:55:57] - mig: yes. i'm surprised he asked. ~a
[2014-11-05 13:53:33] - haven't we had this conversation many times over on here already? - mig
[2014-11-05 13:49:15] - why ~a
[2014-11-05 13:35:22] - i am. ~a
[2014-11-05 13:34:35] - a: You're anti-citizen's united? -Paul
[2014-11-05 13:31:33] - i voted for sarvis. it was a hard decision for me: honestly, i agree with warner on more of the "things", but i'm fairly disillusioned with both of the main parties (see prism, warantless things, keith alexander, chris dodd, citizens united, etc). i also figured we wouldn't have found ourselves in such a tight race; though that doesn't really matter. ~a
[2014-11-05 13:30:33] - Strangely, in both races Sarvis was in, what was supposed to be democrat victories became very close contests. If you believe in the spoiler effect, I think it's fair to wonder who Sarvis was really a spolier for. - mig
[2014-11-05 13:01:31] - but wait, paul, if you had voted for his guy instead of sarvis, his guy would have won. (/s) ~a
[2014-11-05 12:41:05] - My Sarvis sign in my car finally provoked a response today. I got accosted (in a very polite way) by some random person in the parking lot of Plaza America. Supposedly sympathetic to libertarians, but really hates Democrats.
-Paul[2014-11-05 11:34:38] - xpovos: I'm going to guess that he's wanting to get gtav (comes out in 2 weeks) and wants to play it on ps4? - mig
[2014-11-05 11:05:42] - mig: yeah i'll probably continue to use chromecast. ~a
[2014-11-05 11:05:17] - xpovos:
~a[2014-11-05 11:02:29] - a: I've yet to encounter any difficulties with HDCP yet. OTOH, I also don't use any of the video apps as I just rely on chromecast if I want to stream video onto my TV from another source, and my tv already supports amazon/netflix/hulu directly, but I have popped in a few blu rays, so if the hdcp does toggle for that it's pretty unnoticable. - mig
[2014-11-05 10:59:38] - a: And you want a PS4? -- Xpovos
[2014-11-05 10:55:50] - i don't think bluray is required for hdcp to become a pain: PS4 HDCP toggle must be off to record games, on to watch video apps. enable HDCP? All applications in use will be closed to reflect the changes to your settings. ~a
[2014-11-05 10:39:51] - HDCP became a big issue with the PS3 because it was essentially always on. Pretty much streamers and youtubers hated it because it meant they couldn't use HDMI and had to use the component cables to do any footage recording. - mig
[2014-11-05 10:38:27] - a: OK, sure. Let me just check it with my wife and make sure no one's planning on doing a crazy Christmas for me. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-05 10:34:13] - assuming you're actually interested. ~a
[2014-11-05 10:34:01] - anyways, name me a price, man. ~a
[2014-11-05 10:32:37] - 350+150 != 450 ~a
[2014-11-05 10:32:14] - shit. no, it was my bad math i think. ~a
[2014-11-05 10:32:10] - s/onling/only -- Xpovos
[2014-11-05 10:30:58] - I'm definitely interested in saving on taxes (I'm a bad citizen, but a good economist) but since it's not the unit I want, it probably doesn't work unless you come down on price. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-05 10:30:05] - a: I think we might be talking about different things. Xbox One MSRP $350. Xbox One + Kinect MSRP $450. Kinect onling MSRP $150. You have a One, no Kinect, so the MSRP is $350. If I bought it from you I'd be saving taxes, etc., but that's it. I'd also still have to pay $150 to get the Kinect to get the unit I wanted. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-05 10:24:10] - xpovos: yes, 450, that's what it retails for as a package too, though. otoh, i can probably come down on the price though, and i'm not sure amazon/etc are saying the same.
~a[2014-11-05 09:59:50] - paul: I'm more interested in that we have 2 more states (Oregon, Alaska) and DC legalizing marijuana. It'll be interesting to see how much longer until the drug prohibitionists decide to throw in the towel. - mig
[2014-11-05 09:54:07] - I still haven't jumped on the BluRay bandwagon, so I've never encoutered hdcp. I'm glad for that. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-05 09:53:23] - a: Cool, congrats on winning. Unfortunately without the Kinect I'm not nearly as interested. The retail without the Kinect is down to $350 (temporary they claim) and buying the Kinect as a peripheral is $150, which as a combo blows up in the face of the $450 combined unit. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-05 09:27:54] - Also.. wow, what an election night last night. Can't believe Gillespie got that close to Warner. Virginia Republicans must be so pissed right now that for the second time in a year, their candidate was written off for dead and might've won had they got support from the National Party. -Paul
[2014-11-05 09:26:55] - a: "i'm planning on using the money to buy a ps4" That has to be Microsoft's worst nightmare there.
Not only are you selling an Xbox One, but you're using the money to buy a PS4... -Paul[2014-11-05 08:58:27] - a: yeah i run windows 7 or 8. i guess i've never watched any blu-ray movies on my computer before?? i wasn't sure how widespread this became. yeah, that sucks - aaron
[2014-11-05 08:36:32] - xpovos: no, but you can probably buy one separately. some more details: i have it because i won it in a contest (i'm planning on using the money to buy a ps4). also, i'm flexible on the price. ~a
[2014-11-04 23:21:52] - a: sorry, was working the election. is the One a Kinect sku or without? -- Xpovos
[2014-11-04 16:29:44] - a: Not very related to what you and Aaron are talking about, but I'll throw in a slight DRM annoyance for me... I kept running into a problem with an A/V receiver I had where it would tell me there was an HDCP error and wouldn't show video sometimes. The fix was seemingly unrelated to DRM, but I always wondered about HDCP on my receiver since then. -Paul
[2014-11-04 16:17:26] - "monitors which would apply DRM at the hardware level" this still exists. it's called hdcp. i'm not sure it's always required which is why you probably aren't bothered by it. i assume you run windows 7 or 8? ~a
[2014-11-04 15:26:10] - aaron: I don't know if that POV actually is helpful for a game like that. Though it could help for taking scenic shots, so it does have some utility. - mig
[2014-11-04 15:20:20] - http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/11/04/grand-theft-auto-v-a-new-perspective they're adding a first-person mode to the PS4/XBOne versions of GTA5 - aaron
[2014-11-04 14:58:01] - a: i'm always nervous there will be some annoying DRM breakthrough like that and everyone will buy into it. but for now, DRM just seems to get more and more relaxed each year... knock on wood - aaron
[2014-11-04 14:57:31] - a: if nothing else, i'm at least satisfied that the DRM situation is better today than it was 10 years ago. i remember there was some crap where like, they were talking in ~2006 about selling computer monitors which would apply DRM at the hardware level so you couldn't watch DVDs unless you paid extra money - aaron
[2014-11-04 14:56:01] - a: yeah exactly. i still agree with you that it's infuriating, like HBO go, why did it take 10 years to become a thing? or in my case, just an ad-free streaming service. i pay pandora $30/yr for ad-free music streaming, i'd happily pay hulu/youtube/fios an annual fee to watch videos without ads, but none of them want my money - aaron
[2014-11-04 14:46:12] - aaron: i agree with the stupid -vs- evil distinction. stupid: people know what they're buying when they buy it; you're getting a drm limited product that you can only use in one way and you know it. evil: we'll take away your ability to use this product entirely without prior notice. (yes! i voted today. are we talking here like this so nobody will see?) ~a
[2014-11-04 14:15:20] - a: yeah, i know what you're saying about chromecast. the difference is to me, they're narrowing their customer base, versus screwing over existing customers. one is stupid, and the other is evil. i'll always go with stupid over evil (by the way did you vote today!) - aaron
[2014-11-04 14:09:41] - mig: I didn't hear about Gary Johnson. That's a little surprising, considering he's the CEO of a marijuana company... -Paul
[2014-11-04 13:09:35] - Xbox-1 list of complimentary games for comparison. - mig
[2014-11-04 13:05:36] - it looks like the PS4 has made good strides in partnering with indie developers. The free 1-2 games/month with PSN+ have typically been pretty good, though I don't know what Xbox-1 has been offering on their side. - mig
[2014-11-04 13:00:43] - paul: I'm pretty sure it has to do with conflicts with how Xbox live works in regard to downloadable titles. IIRC there was a indie developer saying that trying to release a patch on Xbox live was a major headache. - mig
prev <-> next