BOTH were willing to PAY for the install of the hardware and the maintinance of that hardware in the Comcast Colo.
You net neutrality drones have been claiming that comcast is "extorting money" from netflix when they require netflix to cover the bill.
So basically what you are saying is that I am right and that the net neutrality drones actually have nothing to complain about. According to you, Netflix is not being "extorted" after all. In fact, what you are saying is that this is exactly what Netflix wanted.
So whats the problem? Oh.. thats right... "net neutrality hurr hurr hurr"... you are a drone.
Trying to actively control a massive, chaotic system is not going to end well.
We are told by climate scientists that we have such an outstanding grasp of this "massive, chaotic system" that they can make accurate long term predictions. Seems to me that the veracity of your beliefs is in direct conflict with theirs.
Or perhaps our grasp of this "massive, chaotic system" isnt the belief that actually drives your opinion. But if thats not it.. then what?
newsflash: it's not murder until the baby has taken its first breath.
Stop dehumanizing humans.
Its called Human Rights, not Breather Rights. In America, black people used to also be considered less than human.
White people waved their hands declaring black people less than human, and now breathing people just like you are doing the same basic hand waving about non-breathers.
I'll echo the anonymous coward: I wasn't alive when that law passed locally.
Yep, it was passed exactly once, 30+ years ago....
You are the proof of my point. You've literally got no fucking idea about local politics. You are so completely apathetic to it that you think these granted monopolies are not only multi-decade grants, but in fact you think that they are actually permanent.
Grow a fucking pair and pay some fucking attention to your local matters. Your local government did not give your local cable companies a fucking 30+ year monopoly 30+ years ago. You make that claim but its a fucking obviously wrong. Your entire argument is based on the beginning premise that is fucking obviously factually incorrect.
If you *do* pay attention to local politics, then you are a fucking simple liar. Dishonesty doesnt make your argument strong.
If you *don't* pay attention to local politics, then you are a fucking apathetic loser letting the local government fuck you unopposed.
A "fair price" and "the highest possible price the majority of people are willing to pay" are not synonyms.
That has nothing to do with whether or not it is Win-Win, and also nothing to do with anything in the post you are replying to. Its your straw-man complete with the perpetually vaguely defined "fair price" hand waving.
You had to go for a straw-man due to the cognitive dissonance associated with not actually having a rational argument that supports your irrational beliefs. You just had to refute something that goes against your unsupportable beliefs, but because your beliefs are actually completely unsupportable (due to the fact that voluntary trade always has the expectation of Win-Win) you needed to immediately commit a logical fallacy in order to do it.
Have fun in the fantasy world where you need to immediately commit multiple logical fallacies in order to defend your faith.
but is pissed off because the cable companies have been jacking up prices much faster than inflation
Yet still its below that value that you assigned to it. This is called Win-Win. Its how the free market works.
You get a service that costs less than the value that you assigned to it, and they provide a service for more than it costs to provide it.
and who hate the terrible service, but because they almost always have monopoly status granted to them (by the city, or the building owner) there's no competition to drive down prices and improve service.
The lack of a free market in your area is directly attributable to the lack of involvement in local politics by the people in your area. Here, "the people" includes you. Let us know when you campaigned for a local solution to your local problem. I'm sure that many of us will support you in your quest for liberty.
Until then, the fact remains that cable television costs less than you feel that it is worth, something that we can trivially conclude since you continue to pay for it. This simple fact tells us that the situation is actually win-win between you are your cable provider. You are both gaining from the trade that you both have voluntarily chosen to engage in.
The cable companies are screwing us now, and will continue to screw us in the future using whatever means available to them.
You are behaving exactly as if your cable plan is worth the money that you are paying for it, while you are saying stuff that doesnt agree with your actions.
I know for a fact that the cable plans offered to be arent worth the money, which is precisely why I am not a subscriber. Because of this it is not possible for me to get "screwed" by the cable company the way you claim that you are.
Its called a free market. You choose what you spend your money on. Clearly you are:
(A) not a rational actor (because you choose to pay for something that you do not believe is worth what it costs)
(B) just another fucking liar (because you actually feel the cable plan that you subscribe to is worth the money that you are spending for it)
(C) a worse liar (because you don't even have a cable plan while claiming to be getting "screwed" by the cable company)
I dont care which one you are. In none of the cases is your opinion about getting "screwed" worth a fuck.
Telling a tiny minority of people to stop being asshats to the vast majority of us is not tyranny.
Its tyranny because not all of us have asshat ISPs because not all of us have let our local government fuck us. You let your local government fuck you and now you, as the solution to your apathy on local matters, want the federal government to fuck me too.
Not everyone has your problem because not all of us allow ourselves to get so fucked by our local government. Your problem is that you didnt pay any fucking attention in civics class. Now you're living in a toilet because you let people shit in your home.
Level 3 has had the same problems with Verizon and Comcast.
Here we see an ignorant net neutrality drone that doesnt know the whole history....
Cogent wanted a free peering arrangement with Level 3 when Cogent was sending more data to Level 3 than Level 3 was sending to Cogent. Level 3 outright refused.
Now Level 3 wants a free peering arrangement with other people when Level 3 is sending more data to them than they are sending to Level 3. These others are refusing.
You wonder what caused Level 3 to completely change direction on the issue? Well I'm going to clue you the fuck in. When Level 3 was against arbitrary free peering they werent the ISP of Netflix. In fact, the ISP they had issue with, Cogent, *was* the Netflix ISP.
The facts of this matter are specifically that no ISP has charged Netflix enough to cover the costs of being Netflix's ISP without issues, and that includes Level 3 and Cogent before them. Its Netflix that benefits from cheaper costs, so its Netflix that in the end is ultimately responsible for footing the bill for the consequences of going with the cheapest option.
The end result of all this however is not bad, because Netflix putting equipment on your local ISP's network is more efficient than Netflix paying their own ISP a rate that supports the extra interconnects that they would otherwise need with your local ISP. Increased efficiency benefits everyone involved, including Netflix, Level 3, Verizon/Comcast, and You. All of you benefit. The prior arrangement (the one that Net Neutrality proponents want to perpetuate) is one where only Netflix benefits by allowing them to continue to underpay for their level of service in perpetuity. Not only does that only benefit Netflix, it hurts everyone else including You.
Explain how it is innovative to use what others are already using.
Thats right. You can't. This is because your argument is shit. Both the scales that concern you are arbitrary crap and also unsurprisingly have nothing to do with metric since both the first and last time you have seen the term "Kilodegree Celsius" was just now in this sentence.
When the rest of the world wakes up and starts using some form of natural units instead of arbitrary shit, only then will you have any sort of reasonable leg to stand on with any sort of argument about the unit of temperature being used.
I wonder if there is a difference between the best engine at beating other engines and the best engine at beating humans.
Yes. I spent a lot of time watching this event and in the chat this subject came up more than a few times in various flavors.
Probably the most important of the factors involved here is that these chess engines use a symmetric evaluation function. In layman's terms this means that they evaluate a given position the same regardless of which side the engine is actually playing. An anti-human optimal evaluation function would also consider which side of the board a human is playing on. Open positions greatly favor the chess engine when it plays vs a human regardless of which pieces the computer is playing with. The more possibility for tactics the better.
On the flip-side, there are people who specialize in anti-computer chess. Its becoming harder and harder for them, but the main idea is the play for a closed position and then to find a positional break that the chess engine culls from its search for various reasons.
Even in computer vs computer chess, often the highest rated engine does quite poorly against the second highest rated engine. This was true about 1 year ago when "Houdini 4" topped the rating lists while it also had a very poor record vs the second highest rated engine "Stockfish DD." Houdini was simply better at beating 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc than Stockfish was.
Now Komodo seems to rate highest on nearly all the rating lists, as well as having just won the unofficial championship. At this moment Komodo when running on good hardware in the strongest chess entity in the universe.
Then, pray tell, what was your bases for using the term "liberal" in your early post.
I used the term liberal because it has a meaning, one to which this audience accepts now in the 21st century and their parents and grandparents have accepted for the entirety of the 20th century. A period of history that you seem to be conveniently unaware of, while you pretend to be on the side of light blazing a trail of semantic bliss through smoke of grammar nazism that spews from your goodness.
There is a new term for the classical usage of Liberal. Its Libertarian. Perhaps you have heard of it... unfortunately perhaps you have denigrated it also. If I checked your post history would I find you doing that at any point?
By trying to exclude the boys from the team, Google and the Democrats are telling the world that it is okay to discriminate against the boys
Discrimination is nothing new for the Democrats. When its not about color or sex, its about class. Always defining a divide. Always pitting groups against each other.
I agree that it is a problem that males are under-represented in many subject areas, but that doesn't mean that the under-representation of women in CS isn't a problem as well.
No, thats exactly what it means in spite of your claim that it isn't. The onus is on you to show that a problem actually exists, much like the onus was on those that claimed that females are favored to provide citations (which they did.)
This is how it works. Really. I guess the education system screwed you out of knowing that.
I personally take a XR medication, even though there are cheap generics for the older two-a-day formulation. If my insurance situation changed for the worse, I'd switch in a heartbeat...
The people in your insurance pool should see to it that you are removed from it, one way or another. Seriously. You are a selfish bastard. Fuck you.
Patents have traditionally had an exploitation requirement: you can't just patent something and then sit on it...
You missed the step where they have to disclose, to the public, their invention. Thats why you CAN patent something and then do nothing with it. If you dont want to profit from it before the time is up, then the jokes on you.
This is also why many of the techniques that Intel uses to manufacture chips are not patented. They do not want to disclose, to the public, all of their methods.
Intel now sits on un-patented techniques that it no longer uses, and that my clueless friend is "sitting on it."
That's effectively what they are. They don't do the testing.
They do banning, which is NOT "effectively" what he talked about.
The FDA should not be banning things. Speak from that perspective when you wish to trot out your anti-libertarian bullshit. Whats that? Can't do it without the strawmen? yeah... you can't.
When C was invented, their werent language snobs. Now there are, and they so desperately want C to be low level (so that they get "low level" cred) that they will invent insane arguments such as "times have changed" and "C occupies a space pretty low down the language landscape"
Its really simple. The definition of "low level language" does not subscribe to a "place" on a "list", or what "time" it happens to be. The fact that you so desperately want to change the definition in a way that makes you a "low level programmer" proves that you are a fucking language snob. You dont magically become a low level programmer while banging C code out just because python was invented, you fucking moron.
Slashdot Mirror
BOTH were willing to PAY for the install of the hardware and the maintinance of that hardware in the Comcast Colo.
You net neutrality drones have been claiming that comcast is "extorting money" from netflix when they require netflix to cover the bill.
... you are a drone.
So basically what you are saying is that I am right and that the net neutrality drones actually have nothing to complain about. According to you, Netflix is not being "extorted" after all. In fact, what you are saying is that this is exactly what Netflix wanted.
So whats the problem? Oh.. thats right... "net neutrality hurr hurr hurr"
MY RIGHTS are NOT yours to take and they're not mine to GIVE AWAY. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Funny that you so proudly support the taking away of the first right, the right to life, of others.
Trying to actively control a massive, chaotic system is not going to end well.
We are told by climate scientists that we have such an outstanding grasp of this "massive, chaotic system" that they can make accurate long term predictions. Seems to me that the veracity of your beliefs is in direct conflict with theirs.
Or perhaps our grasp of this "massive, chaotic system" isnt the belief that actually drives your opinion. But if thats not it.. then what?
newsflash: it's not murder until the baby has taken its first breath.
Stop dehumanizing humans.
Its called Human Rights, not Breather Rights. In America, black people used to also be considered less than human.
White people waved their hands declaring black people less than human, and now breathing people just like you are doing the same basic hand waving about non-breathers.
You support murder. Fuck you.
I'll echo the anonymous coward: I wasn't alive when that law passed locally.
Yep, it was passed exactly once, 30+ years ago....
You are the proof of my point. You've literally got no fucking idea about local politics. You are so completely apathetic to it that you think these granted monopolies are not only multi-decade grants, but in fact you think that they are actually permanent.
Grow a fucking pair and pay some fucking attention to your local matters. Your local government did not give your local cable companies a fucking 30+ year monopoly 30+ years ago. You make that claim but its a fucking obviously wrong. Your entire argument is based on the beginning premise that is fucking obviously factually incorrect.
If you *do* pay attention to local politics, then you are a fucking simple liar. Dishonesty doesnt make your argument strong.
If you *don't* pay attention to local politics, then you are a fucking apathetic loser letting the local government fuck you unopposed.
A "fair price" and "the highest possible price the majority of people are willing to pay" are not synonyms.
That has nothing to do with whether or not it is Win-Win, and also nothing to do with anything in the post you are replying to. Its your straw-man complete with the perpetually vaguely defined "fair price" hand waving.
You had to go for a straw-man due to the cognitive dissonance associated with not actually having a rational argument that supports your irrational beliefs. You just had to refute something that goes against your unsupportable beliefs, but because your beliefs are actually completely unsupportable (due to the fact that voluntary trade always has the expectation of Win-Win) you needed to immediately commit a logical fallacy in order to do it.
Have fun in the fantasy world where you need to immediately commit multiple logical fallacies in order to defend your faith.
Or you're a customer who likes cable TV
but is pissed off because the cable companies have been jacking up prices much faster than inflation
Yet still its below that value that you assigned to it. This is called Win-Win. Its how the free market works.
You get a service that costs less than the value that you assigned to it, and they provide a service for more than it costs to provide it.
and who hate the terrible service, but because they almost always have monopoly status granted to them (by the city, or the building owner) there's no competition to drive down prices and improve service.
The lack of a free market in your area is directly attributable to the lack of involvement in local politics by the people in your area. Here, "the people" includes you. Let us know when you campaigned for a local solution to your local problem. I'm sure that many of us will support you in your quest for liberty.
Until then, the fact remains that cable television costs less than you feel that it is worth, something that we can trivially conclude since you continue to pay for it. This simple fact tells us that the situation is actually win-win between you are your cable provider. You are both gaining from the trade that you both have voluntarily chosen to engage in.
The cable companies are screwing us now, and will continue to screw us in the future using whatever means available to them.
You are behaving exactly as if your cable plan is worth the money that you are paying for it, while you are saying stuff that doesnt agree with your actions.
I know for a fact that the cable plans offered to be arent worth the money, which is precisely why I am not a subscriber. Because of this it is not possible for me to get "screwed" by the cable company the way you claim that you are.
Its called a free market. You choose what you spend your money on. Clearly you are:
(A) not a rational actor (because you choose to pay for something that you do not believe is worth what it costs)
(B) just another fucking liar (because you actually feel the cable plan that you subscribe to is worth the money that you are spending for it)
(C) a worse liar (because you don't even have a cable plan while claiming to be getting "screwed" by the cable company)
I dont care which one you are. In none of the cases is your opinion about getting "screwed" worth a fuck.
Telling a tiny minority of people to stop being asshats to the vast majority of us is not tyranny.
Its tyranny because not all of us have asshat ISPs because not all of us have let our local government fuck us. You let your local government fuck you and now you, as the solution to your apathy on local matters, want the federal government to fuck me too.
Not everyone has your problem because not all of us allow ourselves to get so fucked by our local government. Your problem is that you didnt pay any fucking attention in civics class. Now you're living in a toilet because you let people shit in your home.
Why make 100,000 towns and cities file 100,000 court cases when the federal government can do it in one fell swoop?
Because the other 100,000 towns, the ones you failed to mention at all, arent interested.
Stop promoting greater tyranny in order to solve lesser tyranny.
Level 3 has had the same problems with Verizon and Comcast.
Here we see an ignorant net neutrality drone that doesnt know the whole history....
Cogent wanted a free peering arrangement with Level 3 when Cogent was sending more data to Level 3 than Level 3 was sending to Cogent. Level 3 outright refused.
Now Level 3 wants a free peering arrangement with other people when Level 3 is sending more data to them than they are sending to Level 3. These others are refusing.
You wonder what caused Level 3 to completely change direction on the issue? Well I'm going to clue you the fuck in. When Level 3 was against arbitrary free peering they werent the ISP of Netflix. In fact, the ISP they had issue with, Cogent, *was* the Netflix ISP.
The facts of this matter are specifically that no ISP has charged Netflix enough to cover the costs of being Netflix's ISP without issues, and that includes Level 3 and Cogent before them. Its Netflix that benefits from cheaper costs, so its Netflix that in the end is ultimately responsible for footing the bill for the consequences of going with the cheapest option.
The end result of all this however is not bad, because Netflix putting equipment on your local ISP's network is more efficient than Netflix paying their own ISP a rate that supports the extra interconnects that they would otherwise need with your local ISP. Increased efficiency benefits everyone involved, including Netflix, Level 3, Verizon/Comcast, and You. All of you benefit. The prior arrangement (the one that Net Neutrality proponents want to perpetuate) is one where only Netflix benefits by allowing them to continue to underpay for their level of service in perpetuity. Not only does that only benefit Netflix, it hurts everyone else including You.
Perhaps this should be obligatory
Explain how it is innovative to use what others are already using.
Thats right. You can't. This is because your argument is shit. Both the scales that concern you are arbitrary crap and also unsurprisingly have nothing to do with metric since both the first and last time you have seen the term "Kilodegree Celsius" was just now in this sentence.
When the rest of the world wakes up and starts using some form of natural units instead of arbitrary shit, only then will you have any sort of reasonable leg to stand on with any sort of argument about the unit of temperature being used.
I wonder if there is a difference between the best engine at beating other engines and the best engine at beating humans.
Yes. I spent a lot of time watching this event and in the chat this subject came up more than a few times in various flavors.
Probably the most important of the factors involved here is that these chess engines use a symmetric evaluation function. In layman's terms this means that they evaluate a given position the same regardless of which side the engine is actually playing. An anti-human optimal evaluation function would also consider which side of the board a human is playing on. Open positions greatly favor the chess engine when it plays vs a human regardless of which pieces the computer is playing with. The more possibility for tactics the better.
On the flip-side, there are people who specialize in anti-computer chess. Its becoming harder and harder for them, but the main idea is the play for a closed position and then to find a positional break that the chess engine culls from its search for various reasons.
Even in computer vs computer chess, often the highest rated engine does quite poorly against the second highest rated engine. This was true about 1 year ago when "Houdini 4" topped the rating lists while it also had a very poor record vs the second highest rated engine "Stockfish DD." Houdini was simply better at beating 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc than Stockfish was.
Now Komodo seems to rate highest on nearly all the rating lists, as well as having just won the unofficial championship. At this moment Komodo when running on good hardware in the strongest chess entity in the universe.
If 18 Tr sounds like a lot, consider it's really only $25,000 for every man woman and child
Why should anyone listen to someone that is so bad at math, about things that have to do with math?
Then, pray tell, what was your bases for using the term "liberal" in your early post.
I used the term liberal because it has a meaning, one to which this audience accepts now in the 21st century and their parents and grandparents have accepted for the entirety of the 20th century. A period of history that you seem to be conveniently unaware of, while you pretend to be on the side of light blazing a trail of semantic bliss through smoke of grammar nazism that spews from your goodness.
There is a new term for the classical usage of Liberal. Its Libertarian. Perhaps you have heard of it... unfortunately perhaps you have denigrated it also. If I checked your post history would I find you doing that at any point?
Do no confuse the Liberal Party with liberalism.
Only you seems to have done that. Nobody used the term liberalism until you did.
Some conservatives seem to hate him just for being a smart black guy
Some liberals seem to cry racism where none exists.
By trying to exclude the boys from the team, Google and the Democrats are telling the world that it is okay to discriminate against the boys
Discrimination is nothing new for the Democrats. When its not about color or sex, its about class. Always defining a divide. Always pitting groups against each other.
I agree that it is a problem that males are under-represented in many subject areas, but that doesn't mean that the under-representation of women in CS isn't a problem as well.
No, thats exactly what it means in spite of your claim that it isn't. The onus is on you to show that a problem actually exists, much like the onus was on those that claimed that females are favored to provide citations (which they did.)
This is how it works. Really. I guess the education system screwed you out of knowing that.
I personally take a XR medication, even though there are cheap generics for the older two-a-day formulation. If my insurance situation changed for the worse, I'd switch in a heartbeat...
The people in your insurance pool should see to it that you are removed from it, one way or another. Seriously. You are a selfish bastard. Fuck you.
Patents have traditionally had an exploitation requirement: you can't just patent something and then sit on it...
You missed the step where they have to disclose, to the public, their invention. Thats why you CAN patent something and then do nothing with it. If you dont want to profit from it before the time is up, then the jokes on you.
This is also why many of the techniques that Intel uses to manufacture chips are not patented. They do not want to disclose, to the public, all of their methods.
Intel now sits on un-patented techniques that it no longer uses, and that my clueless friend is "sitting on it."
That's effectively what they are. They don't do the testing.
They do banning, which is NOT "effectively" what he talked about.
The FDA should not be banning things. Speak from that perspective when you wish to trot out your anti-libertarian bullshit. Whats that? Can't do it without the strawmen? yeah... you can't.
Drink Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor! DAAAAMN!
News Radio - Rocket Fuel malt Liquor!
Times have changed.
People have changed, too.
When C was invented, their werent language snobs. Now there are, and they so desperately want C to be low level (so that they get "low level" cred) that they will invent insane arguments such as "times have changed" and "C occupies a space pretty low down the language landscape"
Its really simple. The definition of "low level language" does not subscribe to a "place" on a "list", or what "time" it happens to be. The fact that you so desperately want to change the definition in a way that makes you a "low level programmer" proves that you are a fucking language snob. You dont magically become a low level programmer while banging C code out just because python was invented, you fucking moron.