Slashdot Mirror
NRA Gives Ajit Pai 'Courage Award' and Gun For 'Saving the Internet' (arstechnica.com)
The National Rifle Association (NRA) today gave its Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award to Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. "Pai was about to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland when the award presentation seemed to catch him by surprise," reports Ars Technica. "The award is a handmade long gun that could not be brought on stage, so it will be housed in the NRA museum until Pai can receive it." From the report: "Ajit Pai, as you probably already know, saved the Internet," American Conservative Union (ACU) Executive Director Dan Schneider told the audience. The ACU is the host of CPAC; Schneider made a few more remarks praising Pai before handing the award presentation over to NRA board member Carolyn Meadows. Pai "fought to preserve your free speech rights" as a member of the FCC's Republican minority during the Obama administration, Schneider said. Pai "fought and won against all odds, but the Obama administration had some curveballs and they implemented these regulations to take over the Internet." "As soon as President Trump came into office, President Trump asked Ajit Pai to liberate the Internet and give it back to you," Schneider added. "Ajit Pai is the most courageous, heroic person that I know."
The signature achievement that helped Pai win the NRA courage award came in December when the FCC voted to eliminate net neutrality rules. The rules, which are technically still on the books for a while longer, prohibited Internet service providers from blocking and throttling lawful Internet traffic and from charging online services for prioritization. Schneider did not explain how eliminating net neutrality rules preserved anyone's "free speech rights." Right Wing Watch posted a video of the ceremony.
The signature achievement that helped Pai win the NRA courage award came in December when the FCC voted to eliminate net neutrality rules. The rules, which are technically still on the books for a while longer, prohibited Internet service providers from blocking and throttling lawful Internet traffic and from charging online services for prioritization. Schneider did not explain how eliminating net neutrality rules preserved anyone's "free speech rights." Right Wing Watch posted a video of the ceremony.
Just wow. I really hope these motherfuckers have a good view of each other when they're burning in hell.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
that I honestly laughed at this. It came across so powerfully as a funny parody, and I found myself laughing both before and after I realized that they're actually fucking serious. There are no words. Stick a fork in the ass of American social discourse and turn it over, because it is well and truly done.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Get to demonize both things in 1 shot!
Too bad hardly anyone is willing to have an honest discussion about either of those subjects (let alone many others), more interested in 'scoring points' and 'winning' somehow.
Or even just stopping all discussion, that seems to happen alot lately too.
What's next, a lifetime achievement award for Harvey Weinstein?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's one of those trick guns, that when you pull the trigger, shoots the shooter instead.
Way to go NRA... Do it again, Do it again!!!!
This *can't* be for real.
So both the NRA and FCC are run by idiots? Up until now I just thought they were random disconnected idiots. I guess it all makes more sense now.
But in any case why doesn't the NRA just stick to its guns? Is the NRA really just a front for rabid fascists?
Pro white supremacist and anti-consumer. Way to make yourselves relevant.
I had to double-check the link wasn't to an Onion article. One of the most hated organizations in America praising one of the most hated individuals in America is just too Twilight Zone to wrap my brain around right now.
Why dont they allow people to take guns with them to airports?
Why dont they allow North Korea to have nukes. Whatâ(TM)s to fear? The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a nuke is good guy with a nuke.
This is satire right? Isn't it? I keep looking for the tag but I can't find it.
Early April Fools prank? No? FFS what is going on?
...a lot of gun owners don't like the NRA. They seem to think the R stands for Republican.
Literally could not get more American. Ending net neutrality means increasing incentive for people to build mesh nets, crush cable and cellphone monopolies, and make it borderline if not actually impossible to spy on people. The fact he's going to arm teachers, thereby removing the overwhelming majority of gun-free zones in the US, is fucking amazing. For the first time in my life we have a leader who is genuinely enhancing freedom and liberty instead of ceding authority to foreigners like the abomination that is the UN, and the tears of gun-grabbing practically-treasonous liberal-extremists is just icing on the cake.
Sadly this is not off topic:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/18/trump-nra-fbi-alexander-torshin-russia-investigation
The FBI is investigating whether a Russian banker with close ties to Vladimir Putin funneled money through the National Rifle Association to support Donald Trumpâ(TM)s presidential campaign....The NRA spent at least $30m to back Trumpâ(TM)s 2016 campaign for president...News outlets have been examining ties and meetings between NRA leaders and Russia for months, including a 2015 NRA delegation to Moscow that included meetings with influential Putin allies....
You get the picture?
These April fools jokes come earlier every year.
At first I thought this had to be an Onion piece. The two most corrupt dirtbags, in the most corrupt political system outside a third world dictatorship, giving each other a hand job at CPAC.
This is the pathetic level to which conservatives have sunk.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Five nines worth of the turdburglars ragging on Pai haven't even read the documents.
Appeal to Feels.
It should be obvious by now that guns didn't save our net neutrality, nor have they been saving us from a steady erosion of rights and freedom. Unfortunately, the fact this isn't obvious to many is the reason we have the problem. If things keep going this way, in 50 years autonomous weapon systems will render guns completely worthless with respect to resisting the government which was supposed to be the point.
AFACT, absolutely nothing, other than that they both hold policy positions that antagonize liberals.
The fact that they are giving each other awards suggests to me that the only thing holding the Republican Party together these days is their collective urge to "piss on the other team".
Fun, in a sort of Lord-of-the-Flies, junior-high-locker-room-towel-snapping sort of way, but not exactly a viable long-term philosophy for running a first-world country. Hopefully when the Republicans get their asses handed to them by voters this fall they will remember that they are expected to serve the country's interests, not just snap towels at the nerds.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
...the NRA exists neither to support your right to defend yourself nor a free internet (as they just soundly demonstrated); they're a well-known astroturfing organization; just as PETA's real role is to make animal lovers look like retarded psychos, the NRA's role is anything but what people think. Donate to the Gun Owners of America or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Surely... right? ....
Ugh.
Just have one question..
Why?
I can't imagine why the NRA would do this. The NRA has a very specific purpose. Well actually there are two NRA groups, each with a specific purpose. One does gun-related safety training and such, the other defends the second amendment in the political arena. Neither has any business taking a stand on any particular regulations related to things around principles of network neutrality. It's not what they were created and funded to do.
with a bar of soap.
Listening to CPAC on CSPAN today I couldn’t believe how deranged these people all seem. I really feel like the NRA was threatening armed insurrection if Donald Trump is removed from office. Core beliefs: there is no Global Warming (or doesn’t matter much); Democrats and liberals are part of a Socialist plot to take all our rights away; immigrants are destroying our culture; everyone who needs (deserves) healthcare will have it (only lucky well-paid working people deserve it); luck and privilege are not factors in obtaining wealth, only hard work is.
When Trump goes down (and he will) I fear what these groups will do. They’ve made it clear what their guns are for when push comes to shove.
Letter To Iran
I think this post is bull. There's NOTHING on the NRA's website about this. You'd think there would be.
Here you have it folks, a perfect example of fascism at work. Corporations slowly but surely establishing their power over governement and the people. Legislators, media, weapons, etc. All the tools necessary to enforce totalitarism.
And they'll succeed, too, because a little more than half of the population are too ignorant, clueless and gullible to see what's going on.
"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". And these days, I see a hell of a lot of good men doing a hell of a lot of nothing.
Ignorance is Truth.
And people are worried about Russian propaganda?
This is why I do not register .com domains anymore. Only TLDs controlled by authorities outside the US are acceptable now. We are also moving all of our hosting services out of the US.
The US is in full self-destruct mode, and I don't think they will recover.
...when digital stream services start dropping NRAtv and they complain about large media companies censoring them.
This is a great strategy for building blind loyalty.
Now everything he does is hard-right sanctioned gold and will solicit the most vocal supporters to shout down even the most informed comments.
Well played you immoral, unethical fucks.
I do not have a gun. But, maybe, I ought to join the NRA now...
I would've already, but I don't want yet another vast organization to know my address and bombard me with various marketing material.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Sorry, StuporKrinkle, but the reason things won't happen is because people will fight to resist the oppressions that Pai would blithely allow while proclaiming the wondrous freedom to starve, to be coerced, and to be cheated.
It'll be like the time you were playing with matches and your mother tossed you in the bathtub.
We'll have a "happy accident"
I shot competitively for a few years and I was a member of the NRA to keep track of my progress. I didn't agree with them 100%, but I supported their defense of the 2nd amendment in principle - and on a number of their talking points - so I was fine with paying for membership. Then they started going in the direction of being a mouthpiece for the far right with shit like this.
There are many moderates and even *gasp* liberals who like guns! If my experience is an indication of the rest of the country's gun-owning-but-not-far-right population, the NRA is going to continue losing membership and support. I may consider renewing my membership if they ever go back to what they used to be, but in the meanwhile I'll direct my money and energies elsewhere.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Motto of the American Rifle Association.
The NRA is owned by industry, the issue group front is just to make them more powerful lobbyist. The drug industry would love to hijack the AARP like the NRA has been.
They want you for the influence you can give them and nothing more.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You can't make this stuff up
Free from federal NN rules.
The freedom for communities to innovate again. To build their own networks.
The freedom to talk about why federal NN rules held back network competition.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
As the Marine general said the other day "Do those people not understand one company of Marines can take out an entire small city?" The only thing it's guaranteeing is your ability to shoot up your neighbors.
They really buried the lede in this story. See that part where it says the NRA gave Pai the rifle, but he couldn't bring it on stage with him at CPAC? Do you know why Pai couldn't bring his prize with him on stage at CPAC? Because CPAC, with all it's gunhumping and masturbatory 2nd Amendment cosplay is a gun-free zone.
Got that? The "Conservative Political Action Conference" with its keynote from Wayne LaPierre and wild cheering for the notion of giving schoolteachers guns and for watering the tree of liberty, and a good-guy with a gun horseshit does not allow guns at its conference.
Conservatives - there is just no bottom to their hypocrisy.
https://i.redditmedia.com/vzdl...
You are welcome on my lawn.
are taking over the world. Simply by naive [belief-based] popular memes and population numbers. This is exactly how Brexit and Trump election has been tilted - just show some catchy internet memes to vast majority of uneducated idiots.
I'm as leftist-pacifist-Eurofag as it gets without being an extremist, and even I think, if anything, that only means that your population is not trained and armed *enough*!
Every US citizen should get a full-on warefare training. Both front line and strategic work. And each town should have its own tank(s) and fighter jets and bigger ones even ships and such. All owned by a well-trained comunity.
Plus there should be an even more intense modern training for countering social engineering and reality engineering amd psychology, aka all of politics, lobbyism and media, marketing, PR, management, intelligence, etc. Because that is the most powerful weapon nowadays.
And yes, acting wisely should be mandatory from first class of school on, if you want to stay a citizen. (Everybody has the right to leave and make his own country IMHO.)
I'm not a (free market) libertarian, btw, because I know that, like comminism and representative democracy, it fundamentally contradicts human nature and cannot work.
My principle is simple: 100% no-compromises fairness for *everyone*. Everything else is a logical conclusion from that. And actually, all -isms become the same thing a that point.
They have and continue to support mass murder. Any politician, from any party, who accepts their money, should be thrown out of office. Once we've purged the parasite that is the NRA, we can start working on repealing the 2nd amendment.
Ironic that CPAC is a gun-free zone. LMAO!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/right-to-bear-arms-not-at-cpac-2016
https://i.redd.it/04tan5cy80i01.jpg
because my eyes and mind wouldn't let me read 'courage' but instead my mind was fixed on 'coward'.
Ironically, I am posting posting anonymously...
barack obongo: president who bombed the most -> Peace prize 2009
...and you thought that nra-P. Ajiit marriage was funny!
Bruce Jenner: man -> Woman of the Year award 2015
Saudi Arabia: nuff said -> Elected to UN women's rights commission 2017
I could throw a few religions here too, but it might make some of you go "REEEEEEEE"
The NRA is the drunk Uncle who stands up and gives a solo round of applause during the middle of a funeral.
-- Powered by GNU/Linux
This is not an award from the NRA. The NRA has not such award, has never issued anything like it.
It was an award presented by the ACU. The ONLY correlation to the NRA is, the presenter of the award was NRA board member Carolyn Meadows.
They condemn the school guard who waited 4 minutes (sic) with his pistol outside.
When 2 patrolmen see 1 guy wielding a revolver in a bank full of people, the call for reinforcement, block the streets, call SWAT, FBI and whatnot... and those guys have bulletproof vests, shotguns ...
And this single guy was supposed to go against an unknown number of killing, suicidal shooters on speed, with armor, assault guns, large mags with armor-penetrating ammo with his pistol alone?
And he didn't even know where in the building they were.
Are they crazy?
Same thing for arming teachers, what are they going to do?
They will sit in a wardrobe with their .38 in hand shitting their pants and then accidentally kill the student who wants to seek refuge in the same wardrobe.
Carolyn Meadows of the National Rifle Association (NRA), who is also and member of the American Conservative Union (ACU), gave the ACU's Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award to Ajit Pai.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdB5YxxK3Lc
Irony is that by celebrating the end of Net Neutrality, they're opening up the possibility for ISPs to block the NRA!
I mean, gun owners are a fairly hard core group, so why shouldn't ISPs now create a "gun lover's package" or set of packages? Access to the NRA and other gun related forums all for another $50 a month? Less than what you spend on ammo a month!
And the NRA's cheering the guy that's making it happen...
Posting anon on purpose.
NRA doesn't seem to grasp the purpose of the second amendment, IMHO.
The sole purpose of keeping and bearing arms for the public is so they can overturn a government that doesn't serve the people.
That was fine at the time the constitution was written, but now it's not enough to own a rifle if you want to make sure the government doesn't oppress it's people.
Internet, social media and mobile phones has made mass surveillance and profiling of the entire population almost a trivial task.
Want to know who has opposing political views? Want to know who their friends are?
Want to know who they meet?
It's just a query away.
Mass surveillance is now a much more dangerous tool for those wanting to oppress a population than guns ever was. And having one yourself doesn't help at all. The Arab-spring let people to believe that social media empowered people, but that is only true if the ones that oppress do not control all platforms. Turned against the people it's a scary tool.
The NRA should not get involved on the corporate side of regulating the internet. If they want to protect the 2nd amendment and it's true purpose then they should consider who they publicly support. A guy who wants to take away the right for people to use the internet outside of the walled gardens of corporations does not have the people best internest at heart.
... that the NSA did such false flag organization tricks on 43 organizations in a single year. Including the Tea Party, Occupy, Anonymous, and the Pirate Party.
Yes, even the TP was once decent and reasonable.
I strongly recommend that some Americans actually read that shit.
The Nobel Peace Prize is not actually a Nobel Prize. Do you know who picks the next winner? A council made entirely out of e few of the last winners! (Those stupid enough to not find an excuse to avoid it. A bit like jury duty.)
And for the record, I think the role of the US president is that of a meaningless figurehead, whose only purpose is to distract and then be replaced, like an oil filter. ... of which we could make a game show too ... would be: Is this decision one of the nutjob rulers or the nutjob president.
So I'm not pro or contra anyone of them. I consider all of them to be on the same team. Obama just continued Bush's policies. Because this isn't a kingdon. And Trump may clown a lot, but he has exactly two choice: Continue the same way too, or become a literal despotic dictator. Period. And trying to go against those in power usually ends up with a headshot in your car or somethig.
So the only question
And yes, his successor will be a "democrat", and somehow be even more extreme and worse. It might just be DemoTrump^2 again.
And anyone who takes any of those two imaginary "sides" is a moron and literal livestock.
If anyone needed a practical real world example of the filthiest scum circle jerking while they slowly ruin the country, this is it. I expect Trump to come in and serenade them both with a speech on tax cuts.
Is there such a list? Is it public?
Asking for a friend.
Sorry to disappoint your black-eyed anticonspiracy theory delusions.
Is ANYONE going to service their argument that the repeal protected free speech?
Is ANYONE going to service the pro-repeal argument at all?
Or are you just going to gibber like beasts pretending your opponent is another species?
Because in case you didn't notice, your attitude is fomenting a civil war.
And by God, you deserve to lose it.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
Does anyone here actually know what any of the "neutrality rules" were?
Some paraphrased statement that selective throttling isn't explicitly banned?
Did it ever occur to you that internet service providers don't want you to be dissatisfied with their service and that it's in their interest to provide you good service?
Has there ever been a recorded example of throttled traffic before neutrality rules were emplaced?
You all seem to have a fundamental lack of faith in natural order. Very typical of city-dwellers who have sparing experiences of nature. Your reverence for nature and its workings is replaced with confusion, ignorance, and fear, which enables the mindless authoritarianism to which you are so inclined.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
The NN legislation of Obama was not perfect but why in the world could you claim doing away with such would improve access for everyone?
The Pai legislation is only positive for the wealthiest of companies, the rest are left by the wayside.
Pai's legislation (or lack thereof) is like admitting the guy with the biggest truck always has the right of way.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
That medal had better be extremely radioactive.
and fuck the NRA
Most NRA members would love to see that dothead shot. They just love brown skinned people.
And if wasn't already on the fence about revoking my NRA membership.. It's definitely made my mind up..
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
by Mister Transistor ( 259842 ) on Friday February 23, 2018 @09:12PM (#56179803) Journal
Just wow. I really hope these motherfuckers have a good view of each other when they're burning in hell.
This is awesome. NRA is best group for protecting this second amendment and ajit Pai is best guy for protecting internet from liberal big government. Normal Americans like me salute to both of them for amazing jobs done.
I believe an Axis of Fuckwittery is emerging.
Roger Stone, Trumpy advisor, already warned that getting rid of The Donald would result in Civil War.
I'm happy to call his bluff and take the chance.
Net Neutrality was an abomination masquerading as freedom. The government cannot do anything well or cheaply. The internet grew up and matured with out net neutrality and is better off with government sticking their fingers in it. And if you don't know that the NRA is the premier civil rights organization today, you are simply uninformed. Learn history and why we have the 2A.
The NRA is FUCKING joke! They are not the friend of gun owners. They were instrumental in the passing of the 1968 Gun Control Act. They are fine with banning of bump stocks. Oh but they were used to kill people. in ONE FUCKING incident because some terrorist used one. There are millions of them out there. But people forget automobiles kill more people than bump stocks do or more than guns do. Why are liberals all over TV going ape shit to ban automobiles???? Trump is a FUCKING joke! He is no more qualified to be president than Hillary "canckles" Clinton is.
The INTENT of the founding fathers for the 2nd Amendment. All the liberal interpretations are DEAD wrong. Even some sloppy second conservatives have it wrong. Try reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.
Heck Democrats The "party of Jefferson" doesn't have a FUCKING clue what his stance on the 2nd Amendment was.
Let me educate you!
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
- Thomas Jefferson (1764), quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment."
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;"
- Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
"[E]very able-bodied freeman, between the ages of sixteen and fifty, is enrolled in the militia... The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Quivery IX
What did George Washington thing about it.
Well - lets see:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American peopleâ(TM)s liberty teeth and keystone under independence ⦠from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ⦠the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all thatâ(TM)s good."
- George Washington, First President of the United States
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place
The Truth is a Virus!!!
is anyone else bored with this topic? The people in power do whatever they want, and when they're writing the history books they're going to say americans were overjoyed at the prospect of the usa government attempting to coup the internet with regulations or lack thereof. Same story, different headline. Yawn.
Yes, well:
SMART now means DUMB, at least in reference to phones,
MODERN now means STUPID, at least in reference to user interfaces,
so it's not really a surprise that
SAVED new means DESTROYED.
FTFY
Strange how these typos creep in
Let these far left-wing folks vent their emotions here in this story. Think of it as as if you were at the store and saw a child throwing a tantrum. There's nothing you can do except watch in bemusement.
The NN legislation of Obama was not perfect
Right. Because it wan't legislation. There was no legislation.
The Pai legislation
There is no Pai legislation. Removing an executive branch rule made just a couple of years earlier is not "legislation."
Pai's legislation (or lack thereof) is like admitting the guy with the biggest truck always has the right of way.
No, it's like saying that person who builds and owns a network can run decide how to run that network in the way that best makes it possible for them to keep it running at a price they can pass along competitively. There is no internet, but there are lots and lots of individual networks owned and operated by different types of entities. Forcing some small rural network operator to allow YouTube to swamp their limited microwave bandwidth with cat videos while the remote-working customers trying to stream a community college's math class get buffered is exactly what we're talking about. The "big truck" you SHOULD be worrying about is Google, or Facebook - and you want to deny network operators the right to tell those guys they don't own the local network.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This sounds to me like there was sort of deal struck between the Trump administration and NRA. The NRA is suddenly spouting of anti-net neutrality rhetoric, which seems off topic for them, and after the latest school shooting the Trump administration is trying to shift blame away from guns and place it on anything else.
I wonder if they put initials on the bullets, too, for the next time he does something they *don't* like.
Hopefully it's loaded and he'll shoot himself in the eye while curiously looking inside it's barrel... the goofy dumbasss he is. Idiocracy someone?
Does someone have a mirror for that site? My ISP is blocking the domain.
Have gnu, will travel.
Nor has Nancy Pelosi explained her claim that rolling back the "Net Neutrality"* rules would result in "chilling competition, hurting consumers and punishing entrepreneurs and small businesses".
* Quoted because the rule change covered much much more than that.
Forcing some small rural network operator to allow YouTube to swamp their limited microwave bandwidth with cat videos
isn't what happens in the first place. YouTube doesn't just say "hey, this guy's getting cat videos forced down his internet connection today"; if that were happening, you'd find a lot more people siding with you, but the reality is that the ISP's customer is requesting the cat videos.
If the ISP only has enough bandwidth available to serve 128Kbps to each of their customers, they're perfectly welcome to sell that instead of the 5Mbps that allows that customer to request the cat videos and swamp the bandwidth in the first place. It's not YouTube causing the problem, it's the ISP's over -commission of their resources allowing users to cause the problem.
Restated yet another way, if the ISP didn't sell the remote-working customer more bandwidth than they could provide, there would be no problem.
Why are you defending the cause of the problem and insisting that solving it be someone else's problem?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
A White Feather
Of course this is driven by the behavior of some (or even most) of the customers on a given ISP's network. Their TiVo is awake at 3:00 downloading "suggested shows" for them without them given it another thought. The point is that if the ISP wants to promote their services in a small down in part based on the fact that they're going to guarantee a certain level of service to kids trying to access the local school district's or college's materials, isn't that up to them? If they have to shape traffic to favor the teleworker they promised to help out, isn't it up them to risk losing business from the shut-in who now much occasionally see some buffering on a cat video? The ISP can and should make those decisions based on their own priorities and findings and plans.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The NRA just don't give a fuck do they?!
And they really hate geeks
Why is your content any more important than mine?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Sorry for the double reply, but a point slipped past me this first time around. To go records cable broadcasts, it doesn't download shows over the internet. Program guide info, sure, but I doubt that a few KB of guide data is clogging the pipes. You display a severe lack of understanding of the topics being discussed.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
This is why I don't post on mobile... "TiVo", not "To go".
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I can't imagine why the NRA would do this. ... Neither [the "university of firearms" nor the "preserve firearms civil rights" branch] has any business taking a stand on any particular regulations r[e]lated to things around principles of network neutrality.
That's because it's not about network neutrality. It's about coolly sticking to your principles and working toward your goals (especially politically-charged goals) in the face of threats and pressure. (That falls under the "preserve civil rights" branch for several reasons.)
"The rifle is awarded 'when someone has stood up under pressure with grace and dignity and principled discipline ...'' "Previous recipients of the award include Vice President Mike Pence and Sheriff David Clarke."
Don't think the pressure on Agit Pai was great? Don't think it might have turned violent? Just look at the postings here, and in the flood of previous articles mentioning him on Slashdot. Then look at things like the demonstrations in front of his house, with signs attacking his children and other family members (while also engaging in other constant harassment, such as ordering pizzas in his name every half hour).
Then think of them in the context of other demonstrations at the time, blocking conservatives or others with non-leftist ideas from speaking on college campuses, with gangs of masked thugs beating people using Krav Maga destroy-your-opponent fighting techniques or smashing skulls with bicycle locks (all on the premise that politically incorrect speech is an "attack" suitable for being "defended against" using deadly force). What might they have done to someone they perceived as not just talking against their interests, but making an actual change in a government policy?
That is exactly the kind of powerful opposition that the civil rights branch of the NRA is dedicated to enabling people to survive, and to work for their own goals despite such pressure. Whether it's coming from the Antifa, the KKK, government agent provocateurs, foreign "meddlers", political parties, organized crime, racists, or whatever.
(It's also the kind of pressure the NRA itself is subjected to, in its efforts to preserve civil rights for its supporters and detractors alike. So the NRA also benefits by reminding others about the similarity of its own struggle to that of the person they're honoring.)
Ever wonder why I post under a handle? Among other politically-incorrect things, I've been saying for years that most of the problems that "Net Neutrality" tries to address are either anticompetitive practices or consumer fraud, and that both are better handled by the FTC than the FCC. What Pai got his award, and massive threats and harassment, for, is working toward half of that change. I have no interest in being on the receiving end of even the petty harassment (such as complaints to my employers or pizza orders), let alone crowds on my lawn threatening me and my family.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
We have three TiVo units in this house. They DO download schedule info, yes. And of course record material coming over the cable/fiber in traditional "broadcast" mode ... but also streamed material from various sources. Depends on how you have things configured. TiVo dumps non-"broadcast" content on us all the time, like back-episodes of things we're watching, fetched from on-demand type sources, when we've neglected to tell it not to include streamed sources in the "one pass" settings.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You sure it's saving those locally and not just streaming them on-demand? It sure seems as though the streaming services all have something in their terms of service forbidding that.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
They deserve each other.
Arg, I really wish they'd stick to what their organization is focused on, gun rights. I realize what they're doing, they (like many) are hoping if they kiss Trumps rear enough they'll get their wishlists shoved through the legislature. It's unfortunate that one of the few groups with any real chance of protecting our second amendment rights is stooping to brown nosing Trump and his rabble of corruption and stupidity, and I don't think there is really an alternative (GOA is behaving pretty much the same way).
Depends on the source of the content. In some cases, the "my shows" entry provided acts as a link to the stream. In other cases, it's an already downloaded, ready-to-watch file.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I have my doubts about that. Bandwidth may not be super expensive in bulk, but it's not free either; I can't see any media company willingly paying for unnecessary bandwidth.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Does the NRA not realize that the "liberal media" can now make it more difficult for people to reach them?
Say goodbye to my membership.
That's not how it works. These are shows that (by setting up a "one pass") we're essentially asking it to go out and fetch. You THINK you're asking for it to just record them as they come along in the broadcast schedule, but you can also be telling it to scoop up things which your mapped accounts have access to, or which the networks make available. I've disabled this behavior, now, in any season passes we set up. It's pretty annoying, actually.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What a load of horseshit. Why are slashdot posting this bollocks?
Ajit will need the gun gift now that his courage is under fire in the literal sense. Wouldn't be surprised if Ajit joined the NRA as a lifetime member once he noticed he needed full-time security around his house from whoring his FCC vote for AT&T et.al.
send them money quick! Without these caped crusaders, we'd never know what [um] the NRA very publicly did on national television at CPAC. Pretty funny! You do not need a "watch" organization to show you an act that was never hidden in the first place - the NRA and CPAC happily promoted the action and every TV network was free to broadcast it.
Let me see....
An organization (RightWingWatch) that's an org of another org (PeopleForTheAmericanWay) and gets funded by actual proud Hitler-era NAZI collaborator George Soros (who is on tape admitting that his time serving Hitler was the happiest of his life) is upset that an American outfit dedicated to the Bill of Rights gave its bravery award to a guy who did something on principle that angered many, and who stood firm while people mercilessly attacked him all across the net, on nearly every TV channel, and newspaper, and while paid thugs protested at his home and threatened his family. Meanwhile, that very same Soros is on record demanding that Americans give up not only their 2nd ammendment right to self defense, but also their 1st amendment rights where they conflict with his views, and their other rights where those conflict with the needs/desires of globalists and the billionaires who want to rule the entire planet. Hell, the scumbag actually demands that the USA and all the nations of Europe give up their national sovereignty. Strangely, he seems to want Germeny to run all of Europe and the US to lose its global influence - I think we've heard that play before, from his old master. Any normal human being who, in desperation and weakness, collaborated with Hitler would have spent the rest of his life hanging his head in shame; Soros is not a decent human being, nor is anybody who knowingly collaborates with him.
Oh, and if the net neutrality scam was truly about protecting unpopular ideas on the net and was truly compatible with limited government, then the NRA would be all-in supporting it given how unpopular the NRA is in the popular culture and with the big internet companies like Google. This is a principled move.
And before some idiot points out that Google was a sponsor of CPAC, let me point out that:
1. They are not THE spronsor, they are a co-sponsor along with other corps who do the same thing at both the DNC and RNC conventions in election years and at various liberal and conservative orgs in all years.
2. Google knows CPAC is an outfit popular with the Republican establishment, who are in charge in congress these days, and who watched Google spend eight years completely in-bed with the Obama administration.
3. Google has been caught censoring some very mild, establishment-friendly conservatives so many times recently that the congress has taken notice. If they had only gone after the TEA Party types (like the IRS did), or Trump (like the FBI apparently did) they probably would have gotten by with it (as the IRS did, and the FBI appears to be).
4. Google contributes vastly more to left wing outfits/causes.
to help southern black people get guns and learn to use them to defend themselves and their families from Democrats riding around in white sheets lighting burning crosses and lynching blacks.
The NRA is the OPPOSITE of a "whie supremacist" organization.
On the other hand:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, and more all voted to be lead in the United States Senate by a leader of the KKK named Senator Robert Byrd.
Yup.
Up until only a few years ago, the Democrats in the United Satates Senate CHOSE as their Democrat leader a KKK recruiter. Not really all that surprising given that the Democrats have always considered blacks to be their property and were the people who founded the Klan. They despise any black who is not a Democrat just as they used to despise any slave who escaped their plantations. One of the first things any Democrat cares about regaring any person is skin color, and they even allocate tickets to their conventions along racial lines (a certain number to whites, a certain number to blacks, a certain number to hispanics, etc.) This is all well-documented history.
Perhaps that was the NRA's intention. We can hope.
Well that's a stupid thing for TiVo to do by default, especially given that many of their users are likely to be on metered or bandwidth-limited connections. The only person I know with a TiVo, for example, is on HughesNet with a 30GB monthly cap. He must've turned that feature off, because I haven't heard him bitch about it yet.
That still doesn't answer as to why your content is more important than mine and should be allowed to flow freely while mine should not.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
It's not civil war over the internet, it's guns, it's the environment, increasing the debt to give money to rich people, it's the fact that medicine and education, which are necessary to live, are becoming too expensive to have. The theme is to take everything to give to one group and leave scorched earth behind.
Ah, but it's scorched earth with trickle-down watering.
I respected and supported the NRA but thinking that Shitpile Pai "saved the internet" shows they're just the gun-sucking inbred illiterate rednecks everyone claims they are.
So how long until angry internet users start doxxing, DDOSing, and swatting internet companies? I give it until June.
That still doesn't answer as to why your content is more important than mine and should be allowed to flow freely while mine should not.
That would be between me and the company I've chosen to be my ISP. If I think I can get a better deal or better service from a local, rural-community-serving company with limited resources that protects their users from poorer performance because a tiny number of users are inclined to burn up shared bandwidth moving around terabytes of ripped movies, then why would you want to stop me from making that choice?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So first it's the majority of users, YouTube, and TiVo; now it's a tiny number of users and terrabytes of ripped movies. Are you coming around to the realization that your position is more defensible under the guise of preventing copyright infringement, or are you moving the goal posts for fun? How about this: say the tiny number of users moving terabytes of movies work remotely editing footage for large studios. Why shouldn't they be allowed to use that small rural ISP that just so happens to be the only one who'll service their residence? Why is your content any more important than anyone else's? It's really not between you and your ISP, it's between you and the users you claim to be holier than, and for all you know I'm one of them, which makes it between you and me.
The issue with an ISP that "has to" protect some users from the bandwidth use of others is that they're selling you something on paper that they can't provide you in reality. Here's an example that might make sense: a gas station sells 100 customers 10 gallons of gas each; but they only really have 500 gallons to give out. Half of their customers don't need a full 10 gallons to fill their tanks; on average, they need 5 gallons, so that half of the customers uses 250 gallons, which seems fine since half the customers have used half the gas, right?
Now the remaining 50 customers all do need the 10 gallons (or more, but they only bought 10 so that's all they can take) they paid for, but there's only enough left to serve 25 of them in full. Is that the fault of any of the customers? Why should any of the customers accept less than they paid for because the gas station sold more gas than they had to sell?
Why should that be any more acceptable from an ISP?
Yes, you're free to accept it from an ISP if you want, but you should have the expectation of falling on the losing side of the fight for bandwidth just as often as you find yourself on the winning side. You should also understand that the issue is the ISP selling something they don't have, and blame the ISP.
Why?
It's actually really simple.
Let's say that ISP manages to avoid all those Youtube and TiVo users and somehow prevents users from transferring terabytes of ripped movies over their service. That doesn't really free up the nonexistent bandwidth they've sold you and every other one of their customers -- because that bandwadth they sold you didn't exist in the first place. Let's say that same ISP caters exclusively to college students (ironically, the biggest users of Youtube and the most likely movie pirates, but I digress), so you can be assured that most video streaming will be the university's own content (we'll ignore that most of this is likely also hosted on Youtube, making the throttling of Youtube somewhat counterproductive to your original argument). Now, since we're back on your original argument, it's only fair that we go back to mine: that ISP has enough bandwidth to provide 128Kbps to each of their customers, but has sold each of them 5Mbps; how many of them can stream a 3500Kbps video stream simultaneously?
Since we haven't determined how many customers the ISP has, a percentage is acceptable.
SPOILER (but don't take my word for it, do the math yourself): 3500 (bitrate of video) / 128 (actual bitrate available to one user without slowing another user down) = 27.34375. That is, one 3500Kbps (the low end of a reasonable bitrate for 720p streaming content and, in fact, much less than Youtube uses) video stream used the true available bandwidth of 27.34375 of that ISP's customers. 100 (%) / 27.34375 (also %) = 3.6571428571% of the ISPs customers can stream a video from their university before there is no bandwidth left for anyone else to use.
No, kicking off the Youtube and TiVo users and getting rid of the pirates doesn't solve that. And just how do you think prioritizing traffic solves it? By your account, all of that traffic, being the s
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
they're paying for, and that's what most of us just can't get behind.
should read
0.7% of bandwidth for 1-2% of users represents just 35% of what they're paying for, and that's what most of us just can't get behind.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Pai has in fact saved us from the real oppressions,
"Hilariously deluded" are the words that come to mind. I guess he's also cured cancer, got cold fusion working and built a practical flying car in his own garage. Why, the man is a genius *and* a saint!
Hmmm. 2 things:
1). Courage Under Fire Award? I'll assume, unless there's evidence to the contrary, that Ajit Pai came under fire from an NRA member :-) ;
2). "Ajit Pai is the most courageous, heroic person that I know." The meaning of the word "hero" has sure degraded over time. My definition of the word "hero" includes the fact that a hero must not be working, in any way, either directly or indirectly, towards their own self-interest. In fact most actual heroes directly endanger or disadvantage themselves in order to help others. Ajit Pai's example fails all these tests. So not a hero then, and if that's the most heroic person you know then you don't know any heroes at all.
No, the priority traffic should be whatever the ISP tells their clients will be their priority traffic. If they're trying to get rural users to sign up because it's going to help rural kids connect to their schools and local community colleges, then that's their priority in shaping traffic. If they're telling their customers that they're all about making sure Game Of Thrones won't buffer on them, while WoW might get a little laggy, then THAT'S their priority. The ISP can sink or swim based on how well they understand and communicate to their customers.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
And if you only have one choice of ISP where you live? What then?
If we had actual competition in the ISP market everywhere in the country, your argument would hold water. We don't, so it really doesn't.
More to the point, when your schools and local community colleges are using Youtube to host their videos, well, you can't very well promise you won't throttle that content, then go on and throttle Youtube, now, can you?
It's almost like you didn't actually read my post because, well, I covered all of this (save for the lack of competition) already.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
And one of the surest ways to guarantee that a small company won't be able to show up where there's no service at all and start serving underserved people (exactly the problem in so many rural areas) is to require them to dedicate 96% of their limited bandwidth to cat videos. Telling them they can't decide how to deploy and run their own network is telling them they can't make an offering in those deprived markets. You're worried about places where only one ISP has previously set up shop. You obviously don't understand what it's like to live someplace where there's NO service. Maybe you need to get out more, and visit the places that grow you your food.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If they weren't selling more than 12x the bandwidth they have available, this wouldn't be a problem. I already illustrated how they only need to really be able to supply 11% of what they sell (rather than less than 8.25%), which allows them to oversell by a healthy 9x.
I live very close to the places that grow my food, I buy a lot of it from those places. I know what it's like in those places and they have better internet than I do. It might be different near you, but that's not all rural areas, either.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
bashing Obama, and spouting whatever the latest proof is that Trump's Plan is Working(TM).
The latest is the 1000 dollar tax bonus thing 'because it is nice that something is being given back to everyone', while ignoring just how small a drop in the bucket it is and all the concessions made in longer term coverage to make it happen.
America isn't going to be saved. The world may very well not be saved. The dystopian future is being wrought upon us because we didn't start culling the flock earlier. The people that need purging aren't some nebulous but identifiable minority, they are a far more nebulous majority that requires discussion on a variety of topics to prove they are more a liability than an asset to society to keep either voting, or living depending on what kind of damage they can do.
The purge needs to begin sooner. Will you be the one to cast the first stone, or will you wait for them to cast the first hail of bullets from their AR15 afearing lib'ruls?