PDA

View Full Version : Ted Cruz


Terez
11-14-2014, 10:19 PM
Did everyone see his bought-and-paid-for tweet about Net Neutrality being Obamacare for the Internet?

http://samuel-warde.com/2014/11/facebook-responses-ted-cruz-post-will-make-day/

These people found some sane Republicans in the comments on his Facebook post, but said post nevertheless has 14,000 likes at the moment. Go free market!

Davian93
11-15-2014, 12:42 PM
WTF do we care what that stupid Canadian thinks about our gov't anyway? He can't even prove he's actually an American citizen. Go back to Canadia, you hoser!!!

Terez
11-15-2014, 01:27 PM
He's a frontrunner for 2016, despite the Canada thing.

Sei'taer
11-16-2014, 04:02 PM
Y'know, I'm kinda mixed about the whole NN thing. I think we have more of an oligopoly problem that would fix the NN problem..I think. I'm really not sure if it would.

On the other hand, fixing the oligopoly problem causes more regulation of the net (and other things), and I think that's a bad thing.

Either way, there's a problem. Betting on our gov't to fix it without making it worse is a huge bet. I just don't know enough about it to decide which solution I can stomach or if there's a solution I haven't heard that I might like better...

Davian93
11-16-2014, 07:10 PM
The scariest thing about Cruz is that he is, in reality, a quite brilliant guy playing the moron to get the rubes to vote for him...and its working quite well.

Go look up his background and record as an attorney...he's no fool at all. He sure acts like one though.

He basically has no soul and no issues doing or saying whatever it takes to get what he wants.

Sei'taer
11-16-2014, 07:17 PM
He basically has no soul and no issues doing or saying whatever it takes to get what he wants.


In other words, he's a politician.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-17-2014, 02:31 AM
no idea who Ted Cruz is and aside from the USology of this entire thread (yes, I'm crotchety today. Mostly because I didn't get enough crocheting done this weekend) what we're talking about with Net Neutrality is the equal ACCESS to all content online, not so much the equalization of the CONTENT which is accessed. Those are two very different things.

If I understand the proposal correctly, what net suppliers want is to fast-track certain content based on the creators of that content. Which is feared (and IMO justly so) to result in the big payers defining what the average Jack/Jane gets to see and therefore think. In other words, people's access to certain content would be enhanced, while other content would be suppressed. Based on who pays the most. To an extent, of course, this is already true and has been since the beginning of money. However, just because it's already happening, and likely impossible to eradicate completely (nor should we want to! because that would just be replacing one Big Brother with another) doesn't mean that it's right nor that we should further entrench this behavior.

also, if you think it's not monitored/censored already... oh dear, we've come so far since the '90s when flashy horrible porn ads were everpresent, everywhere. I mean, aside from "think of the children", think of my poor eyes having to cope with that... butchery of any aesthetic sense.

Part of the problem is that the net infrastructure costs a lot to maintain and improve - the demands for faster and faster internet speed versus lower and lower costs for that internet speed are driving the net maintenance profit margins to the ground. While the companies that make the content, make the money. I don't blame the net maintenance companies at all for wanting a piece of the pie but the question is: where should that piece come from? Rather obviously, the consumers can't afford to pay more, at least not in enough volume to support the ever-growing demands. At the same time, if content creators were to start paying significantly more, then we'd end up with a whole 'nother problem. So, what's the solution? The only thing I can think of to simultaneously guarantee access and (relative) neutrality of content is to treat the net infrastructure as a utility. Same as the power grid, for instance. And, just to be clear, I think this should be the case in every country, not just theoretically in US.

Of course, then you run into the following problem of Putin blocking access to certain parts of the Internet (i.e. the Big Brother option as described by Orwell), but considering all the scenarios I can think of... this would still be the best one.

Terez
11-17-2014, 04:55 AM
When you say treat it as a utility, do you mean in terms of anti-monopoly regulation, or subsidization?

yks 6nnetu hing
11-17-2014, 05:44 AM
When you say treat it as a utility, do you mean in terms of anti-monopoly regulation, or subsidization?

Ideally both, but primarily the first.

In my personal opinion, affordable access to Internet is more important than affordable fuel.

The Unreasoner
11-17-2014, 11:56 AM
In my personal opinion, affordable access to Internet is more important than affordable fuel.

Except no one has died from lack of internet. When Comcast throttled Netflix, people read a book, played outside, or just pirated material. When Putin cuts off gas supplies, people freeze to death.

Frankly, I don't see any way to avoid an end to net neutrality, much as it depresses me. People won't care until it's too late.

Davian93
11-17-2014, 12:26 PM
Except no one has died from lack of internet. When Comcast throttled Netflix, people read a book, played outside, or just pirated material. When Putin cuts off gas supplies, people freeze to death.

Frankly, I don't see any way to avoid an end to net neutrality, much as it depresses me. People won't care until it's too late.

I didn't...I huddled on my living room floor in the fetal position and didn't move for days.

Davian93
11-17-2014, 05:52 PM
Speaking of Net Neutrality...I just got this response from a right wing nutter on another site about why he's against Net Neutrality (and in reality against Obama)

Access to service/web site is just one aspect of "net neutrality"...also included are free speech issues ... this is where the gov't fails in getting support to require an equal amt of opposing views on sites. Its a goofy and dangerous law that's meant to insure that communist rhetoric must be displayed

Yes, net neutrality is about the gov't forcing communist rhetoric to be displayed on the internet.

That's the ticket!

Kimon
11-17-2014, 06:51 PM
Speaking of Net Neutrality...I just got this response from a right wing nutter on another site about why he's against Net Neutrality (and in reality against Obama)



Yes, net neutrality is about the gov't forcing communist rhetoric to be displayed on the internet.

That's the ticket!

Considering that most people haven't the slightest clue what net neutrality means, it's hardly surprising that it is relatively easy to manipulate the opinions of the few that are paying attention enough to bother caring.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-18-2014, 02:08 AM
Except no one has died from lack of internet. When Comcast throttled Netflix, people read a book, played outside, or just pirated material. When Putin cuts off gas supplies, people freeze to death.

Frankly, I don't see any way to avoid an end to net neutrality, much as it depresses me. People won't care until it's too late.

Right. And when the traffic lights regulation gets shut off that's not life-threatening? Or when an entire hospitals' data gets sidelined because some corporation needs the bandwidth? How about when all airports can no longer communicate with each other? Because those are the services which are invisible to most people but they do require secure access to data which is: surprise! stored online.

Also, I meant gasoline. In order to buy some, you need to do a card transaction, which is done - you guessed it, via the internet. Well, unless you're adamant about carrying all of your cash with you at all times. Such people do exist but I think they're called Quakers.

The Unreasoner
11-18-2014, 03:28 AM
Right. And when the traffic lights regulation gets shut off that's not life-threatening? Or when an entire hospitals' data gets sidelined because some corporation needs the bandwidth? How about when all airports can no longer communicate with each other? Because those are the services which are invisible to most people but they do require secure access to data which is: surprise! stored online.

Also, I meant gasoline. In order to buy some, you need to do a card transaction, which is done - you guessed it, via the internet. Well, unless you're adamant about carrying all of your cash with you at all times. Such people do exist but I think they're called Quakers.
Except none of these scenarios are all that plausible. Who would have an economic interest in stopping people from buying gas? Elon Musk? For the most part, the only way these scenarios could be linked to net neutrality are if 'some corporation needs the bandwidth', but even if some corporation needed that kind of bandwidth (which would apparently be significantly more than they are using now), I think it's a bit far fetched to think the services mentioned would be the ones that are sidelined.

For the most part, and for most purposes, there is plenty of bandwidth to go around. A more realistic threat that would arise if net neutrality is abandoned, imo, is the stifling of competition (political or economic). Certain news media might be throttled to unusability, a company that installs solar panels on houses might not be able to effectively schedule appointments online, that sort of thing. Basically, only sites that someone (with money) has a vested interest in blocking would suffer.

GonzoTheGreat
11-18-2014, 03:50 AM
Yes, net neutrality is about the gov't forcing communist rhetoric to be displayed on the internet.

That's the ticket!
Now you have me wondering which specific government would be willing to come out and say that 2 Girls 1 Cup* would be improved by adding communist rhetoric.

* If you don't know what that is, keep it that way. Take your communist rhetoric straight, it's better that way.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-18-2014, 04:16 AM
Except none of these scenarios are all that plausible. Who would have an economic interest in stopping people from buying gas? Elon Musk? For the most part, the only way these scenarios could be linked to net neutrality are if 'some corporation needs the bandwidth', but even if some corporation needed that kind of bandwidth (which would apparently be significantly more than they are using now), I think it's a bit far fetched to think the services mentioned would be the ones that are sidelined.

For the most part, and for most purposes, there is plenty of bandwidth to go around. A more realistic threat that would arise if net neutrality is abandoned, imo, is the stifling of competition (political or economic). Certain news media might be throttled to unusability, a company that installs solar panels on houses might not be able to effectively schedule appointments online, that sort of thing. Basically, only sites that someone (with money) has a vested interest in blocking would suffer.

You're wrong. This has already happened in 2007 in Estonia and in 2008 in Georgia via targeted attacks (most probably from Russia, but it's very difficult to prove). This has also happened in Iran, temporarily disabling their nuclear project - see Stuxnet. That one was probably Jewish-American, though again nearly impossible to prove. Access restrictions, particularly to (social) media was widely reported during the Arab Spring.

The difference is, the instances I mentioned were targeted attacks rather than simple sidelining of bandwidth as would happen if net neutrality were to be abandoned. The result would still be the same.

The Unreasoner
11-18-2014, 04:53 AM
You're wrong. This has already happened in 2007 in Estonia and in 2008 in Georgia via targeted attacks (most probably from Russia, but it's very difficult to prove). This has also happened in Iran, temporarily disabling their nuclear project - see Stuxnet. That one was probably Jewish-American, though again nearly impossible to prove. Access restrictions, particularly to (social) media was widely reported during the Arab Spring.

The difference is, the instances I mentioned were targeted attacks rather than simple sidelining of bandwidth as would happen if net neutrality were to be abandoned. The result would still be the same.
I'm not saying that critical utilities can't be attacked through the internet. I just think you're conflating the issues. Cyberwarfare will always be an issue, along with cyberterrorism. Censorship is a huge problem. But none of these are hindered much by net neutrality. And since net neutrality laws are made locally, it's hard to follow you. Most companies don't need the kind of bandwidth you're talking about. The few that might are publicly traded. There's obviously a huge difference between the active targeting in the specific examples you gave and the presumably unintentional consequences of priority traffic in your general ones. Unless you are suggesting that some malevolent agency will use priority traffic as a cyberweapon. But in that case, I don't really see the advantage over conventional cyberwarfare techniques.


ETA:
I'm not trying to dismiss your fears, I am legitimately not following you. Could you maybe walk me through a hypothetical?

yks 6nnetu hing
11-18-2014, 06:17 AM
ETA:
I'm not trying to dismiss your fears, I am legitimately not following you. Could you maybe walk me through a hypothetical?

Part of the problem is that the net infrastructure costs a lot to maintain and improve - the demands for faster and faster internet speed versus lower and lower costs for that internet speed are driving the net maintenance profit margins to the ground. While the companies that make the content, make the money. I don't blame the net maintenance companies at all for wanting a piece of the pie but the question is: where should that piece come from? Rather obviously, the consumers can't afford to pay more, at least not in enough volume to support the ever-growing demands. At the same time, if content creators were to start paying significantly more, then we'd end up with a whole 'nother problem. So, what's the solution?

Firstly, it is erroneous to assume that "there's plenty of broadband to go around". this is simply not true. Broadband is not some sort of infinite substance that magically appears out of somewhere. It's hardware, and it needs to be continuously maintained, expanded, updated, configured and readjusted. It's cables that need proper protection from the elements, data centers that need cooling and enough power to light a small town, technicians that are properly educated for mainainting it all... I'm pretty sure that Sare can tell you even more about the actual hardware infrastructure of everything that it takes to create broadband. Or any internet connection, for that matter.

The instances I listed: transportation regulation, healthcare etc., are nowhere near in their capacity to pay for broadband as, say Apple is. And all Apple does is make overpriced pieces of junk that won't communicate properly outside of their own ecosystem even with perfect internet access. But I digress.

Point being, if Fox News is paying for priority use of broadband to bombard the public on horror stories about Ebola, then hospitals get sidelined in their efforts to actually combat Ebola. If the Apple CEO decides that all Apple devices must be updated immediately, and all at the same time, with priority, then it just might be that the traffic light system temporarily loses connection to the Internet and malfunctions.

GonzoTheGreat
11-18-2014, 06:23 AM
I'm not trying to dismiss your fears, I am legitimately not following you. Could you maybe walk me through a hypothetical?
Some competitor to YouTube emerges, without all the privacy problems that YouTube has. This competitor keeps you fully anonymous, but also makes it possible for you to have embarrassing clips that were taken without your consent to be pulled (how they combine these I'll leave an an exercise for the reader; I do want my fair share of the profit of the company, though). At first, this competitor (lets call it MyTube) is getting more and more hits and more and more videos. Then YouTube pays the Internet providers to start restricting MyTube to 1200 Baud only, which is not quite enough for most of the video content nowadays. So, unless MyTube can come up with the millions it needs to buy access in a hurry, their time is over.

Davian93
11-18-2014, 07:50 AM
Right. And when the traffic lights regulation gets shut off that's not life-threatening? Or when an entire hospitals' data gets sidelined because some corporation needs the bandwidth? How about when all airports can no longer communicate with each other? Because those are the services which are invisible to most people but they do require secure access to data which is: surprise! stored online.

Also, I meant gasoline. In order to buy some, you need to do a card transaction, which is done - you guessed it, via the internet. Well, unless you're adamant about carrying all of your cash with you at all times. Such people do exist but I think they're called Quakers.

I tend to do that when I'm on vacation...especially in Europe. Unless its a major purchase (like a hotel room or car rental), I like to just pay cash for stuff. Easier to keep track of, no foreign transaction fees to worry about or poor exchange rates, etc etc. I usually had at least 500 Euro on me in my money belt the entire time I was in France last summer...same with Ireland the year before.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-18-2014, 09:37 AM
I tend to do that when I'm on vacation...especially in Europe. Unless its a major purchase (like a hotel room or car rental), I like to just pay cash for stuff. Easier to keep track of, no foreign transaction fees to worry about or poor exchange rates, etc etc. I usually had at least 500 Euro on me in my money belt the entire time I was in France last summer...same with Ireland the year before.

That I think everyone does. I know of a few people who do not have a credit card, but just on principle only ever use debit. You know, stuff like that. But honestly, on an everyday basis I normally have maybe... max 5 euros in my wallet. In coins, so that I can use a vending machine.

I mean, I am very much aware that I'm speaking from a highly privileged position in terms of internet access. For one, I have one. For another, I have one almost anywhere I go within this country. It's like... when you've lived in a big house all your life and all of a sudden you have to move into a place the size of a postage stamp, it's hard to even imagine what it's like even though you know -theoretically- that people live like that all the time. But, you know, elsewhere. so when you actually move and your stuff doesn't fit and you have to use the stairs instead of the elevator and there's no place to turn around because in order to open the oven door, you can't have the chair sticking out from under the table. And you think "well, that's damn inconvenient" and you're STILL better off than 90% of the world's inhabitants because you actually own an oven and a chair, and presumably have electricity to use the oven. And yet, just because that's your situation at that point doesn't mean that it SHOULD be. abolishing Net Neutrality is a bit like whoever pays the bill (and that's not the consumer=you) gets to decide how big an apartment/ house you have.

The Unreasoner
11-18-2014, 03:22 PM
Some competitor to YouTube emerges, without all the privacy problems that YouTube has. This competitor keeps you fully anonymous, but also makes it possible for you to have embarrassing clips that were taken without your consent to be pulled (how they combine these I'll leave an an exercise for the reader; I do want my fair share of the profit of the company, though). At first, this competitor (lets call it MyTube) is getting more and more hits and more and more videos. Then YouTube pays the Internet providers to start restricting MyTube to 1200 Baud only, which is not quite enough for most of the video content nowadays. So, unless MyTube can come up with the millions it needs to buy access in a hurry, their time is over.
I can follow this. But yks is talking about something else entirely (and consistently misrepresents my points- I know internet doesn't come out of thin air). The fact is, many countries don't have net neutrality laws, and I've never heard of any of these doomsday scenarios happening because of priority traffic. America has some of the worst internet access in the first world, and people still can typically get what they're after. Medical records, traffic data, and things like that don't typically need that much bandwidth. And the powers that be will always want to let people use credit cards.

MyTube clearly would have people interested in stopping or limiting access to it. It's not clear why yks is assuming critical utilities would be the first casualties when and if apple decides to let people download videos faster. Nor is it clear who would have a vested interest in crippling these utilities (I know yks mentioned Russia, Israel, and the US; but why Russia would abide by Georgian net neutrality laws anyway is also unclear.)


ETA:
I also don't see why consumers so obviously could not pay more (iow, enough to keep the isp's business viable). And of course, any country that relies on the internet to run critical utilities would probably take action to protect those utilities from these doomsday scenarios. Of course, the adopted protections might not extend to MyTube.

Which brings me to another point: every argument I've heard in support of net neutrality (which, to clarify, I am in favor of) has been along the lines of free speech and fair competition, with examples like the one Gonzo provided. I have never before heard someone using these doomsday scenarios as the threat posed by an end to net neutrality for an argument. Yes, many critical systems use the internet, but it almost sounds like fear mongering to argue that prioritized traffic poses a direct, inevitable danger to the systems' integrity.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-19-2014, 01:49 AM
I can follow this. But yks is talking about something else entirely (and consistently misrepresents my points- I know internet doesn't come out of thin air). The fact is, many countries don't have net neutrality laws, and I've never heard of any of these doomsday scenarios happening because of priority traffic. America has some of the worst internet access in the first world, and people still can typically get what they're after. Medical records, traffic data, and things like that don't typically need that much bandwidth. And the powers that be will always want to let people use credit cards.

MyTube clearly would have people interested in stopping or limiting access to it. It's not clear why yks is assuming critical utilities would be the first casualties when and if apple decides to let people download videos faster. Nor is it clear who would have a vested interest in crippling these utilities (I know yks mentioned Russia, Israel, and the US; but why Russia would abide by Georgian net neutrality laws anyway is also unclear.)


ETA:
I also don't see why consumers so obviously could not pay more (iow, enough to keep the isp's business viable). And of course, any country that relies on the internet to run critical utilities would probably take action to protect those utilities from these doomsday scenarios. Of course, the adopted protections might not extend to MyTube.

Which brings me to another point: every argument I've heard in support of net neutrality (which, to clarify, I am in favor of) has been along the lines of free speech and fair competition, with examples like the one Gonzo provided. I have never before heard someone using these doomsday scenarios as the threat posed by an end to net neutrality for an argument. Yes, many critical systems use the internet, but it almost sounds like fear mongering to argue that prioritized traffic poses a direct, inevitable danger to the systems' integrity.

it's not fearmongering if it's already happened. The examples I brought aren't even true doomsday stuff. True doomsday is if some other country takes over your nuclear weapons controls.

anyways, your argument "oh it's kinda bad but people still get things done" is invalid. If you relegate certain critical services to the speed of dial-up... sure, you'd get things "done". eventually. Maybe even on time. but, you know, nobody cares so long as the shiny glitter keeps on blasting, taking up all of the broadband speed. Besides, why be complacent with a system that doesn't work very well?

As for why consumers wouldn't pay for critical background services, these are paid for via taxes. EVERYONE is against raising taxes for any reason.

My main issue with the whole net neutrality discussion is that most people only think of the shiny media bubble and the whole "if Netflix is down, I'll just use Youtube or read a book". Most of the examples I've seen are regarding profit-organizations, but what about the non-profits such as Wikipedia? Yes, I know, just because an organization is non-profit, doesn't mean it doesn't have any money. It does, however, mean that their possible application of the available money is much more limited than the for-profit organizations. There are so many more things using the Internet than people are even aware of. And they need to be.

As for why most other democratic countries don't have net neutrality laws, I'm not 100% on this but I suspect it has to do with competition. in US there's very little of it, everything is controlled by a few huge companies and that's that. In Europe, not only does each country have their own networks, there's rather busy jostling for breathing room among the providers in each country separately and for EU-wide dominance as well. [caveat: I may name some companies here that don't actually maintain the infrastructure. because I'm lazy and don't feel like digging] T-Mobile and Vodafone are the biggest in UK, in NL it's UPC and KPN, in most of Scandinavia I think TELE2 is leader but the battle for 2nd place is fierce. Some countries have their own national providers as well, entering the fray. Also, I do think something was discussed in the Europarliament about this but... no idea what the outcome was, other that the roaming fees were dropped significantly.

the non-democratic countries don't have those laws because they're not democratic.

DahLliA
11-19-2014, 05:37 AM
All I have to say is: Thanks for ruining the net for all of us :p

DahLliA
11-19-2014, 05:45 AM
As for why most other democratic countries don't have net neutrality laws,

It's because we're not as corru..., I mean lobbied as the US. Yet at any rate.

Plus, at least in Norway you can choose from several providers (number varies depending on location), so if one of them does something as stupid as slowing down some types of traffic you'd just switch to another provider.

Terez
11-19-2014, 06:51 AM
My main issue with the whole net neutrality discussion is that most people only think of the shiny media bubble and the whole "if Netflix is down, I'll just use Youtube or read a book".
I really hate it when people treat down internet as a trivial thing. I grew up without internet; I can remember life without it and how to deal. But life has moved on. People depend on internet to get work done these days, and I don't see us going backwards. When the power is out, you can be sure that someone is working around the clock to get it back on, and it's usually very quick because of our complex grid systems, but these days, powering the internet is one of the most important things power does, but no one works around the clock when my internet goes out.

All I have to say is: Thanks for ruining the net for all of us :p
Which is why it's kind of pointless to moan about this being an Amerocentric thread; Ted Cruz and his ilk (elks?) might well be contagious, preposterous as that might seem.

I understand that it's probably annoying to start the thread as if You (that's the royal You) have any idea 1) who Ted Cruz is, and 2) what he said. So I summarized 2 and noted how influential his opinion had already proven to be. I thought about also summarizing 1, but that ran the risk of compounding the annoyance by suggesting that You should care, or worse, insulting Your superior worldliness because of course You know all about the mastermind behind last year's government shutdown. We talked about that here because it came perilously close to tanking the world economy.

Cruz also has a good shot (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/aug/20/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president/) at facing Hillary in 2016. These are the rumored top GOP contenders (hopefully I am not forgetting anyone):

Ted Cruz (Texas senator)
Rand Paul (Kentucky senator, libertarian bent; son of Ron Paul, Tea Party godfather)
Chris Christie (scandal-ridden New Jersey governor, proud asshole)
Scott Walker (Wisconsin governor, very dull, yet very controversial)
Marco Rubio? (where has he been lately?)
Paul Ryan? (I'm guessing not; he ran last time as VP, and he's young)
Jeb Bush

They will start announcing at the beginning of 2015. If Bush III runs, he has a shot at beating Cruz (and Bush III vs Clinton II would seal our fate as a dynastic republic), but without some kind of terrible screw-up on Cruz's part, he is otherwise the most "presidential" of the lot and the GOP base loves him. Scott Walker appears to have a strong resume but he's a pitifully weak candidate. Christie is too much of an asshole, and he hugged Obama after Sandy which the GOP base will never forgive. Rand Paul has a following, but he's not the Dragon Reborn, so sad for him.

So if Bush III doesn't run, Cruz has the best shot. Oh, and he's Latin-ish, his father having been born in Cuba. The GOP is foaming at the mouth now on immigration reform so they'll want to try to balance that with either Cruz or Rubio. (Bush III would also be good for that; he speaks better Spanish than Bush II and he married a Mexican-born Latina.) Rubio has been out of the spotlight almost completely since his sponsorship of the reform which turned the GOP base against him and, after his backpedaling, also left Latinos feeling betrayed.

This is important because 1) demographics are trending brown, and Latinos are the fastest-growing bunch, and 2) Latinos are starting to veer toward the ethnic solidarity with the Democratic party seen with African-Americans (95% of whom voted for Clinton I, only slightly less than for Obama). Romney only got 27% of Latinos in 2012, which is the worst that the GOP has ever done.

Not changing the subject, just demonstrating why I didn't get into it in my OP. American policy, coming soon to a country near you.

PS: We have competition too. Usually you can get internet through one of 3 options, not counting cell phones: 1) landline service, 2) cable service, 3) satellite service.

GonzoTheGreat
11-19-2014, 07:02 AM
So if Bush III doesn't run, ...
Shouldn't that be Bush IIB?

Terez
11-19-2014, 07:11 AM
Shouldn't that be Bush IIB?
Only if Louis XVIII should have been Louis XVIB?

Davian93
11-19-2014, 07:20 AM
Marco Rubio? (where has he been lately?)


Looking for a good bottle of water...he's parched.

Terez
11-19-2014, 07:26 AM
Don't be so cognoscentious, Dav. From Rubio's response to some or another State of the Union address by Obama:

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/rubio1.gif

I'm really not sure why this was such a big deal, but it was, and I suppose it's kind of funny.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-19-2014, 09:12 AM
I really hate it when people treat down internet as a trivial thing. I grew up without internet; I can remember life without it and how to deal. But life has moved on. People depend on internet to get work done these days, and I don't see us going backwards. When the power is out, you can be sure that someone is working around the clock to get it back on, and it's usually very quick because of our complex grid systems, but these days, powering the internet is one of the most important things power does, but no one works around the clock when my internet goes out. I couldn't agree more! Also, the strength and the weakness of the internet infrastructure is that it's decentralized. So that if one hub for whatever reason malfunctions, that won't bring the whole net down. It does mean though that all of the hubs need proper maintenance and care.


Which is why it's kind of pointless to moan about this being an Amerocentric thread; Ted Cruz and his ilk (elks?) might well be contagious, preposterous as that might seem. sorry about that. I was in a bit of an annoyance after all the posts by Southpaw which all go on a very specific American topic. Not your OP at all, nor this topic in general either.

PS: We have competition too. Usually you can get internet through one of 3 options, not counting cell phones: 1) landline service, 2) cable service, 3) satellite service. rather by accident I happen to know something about this. Namely, our project is contractually obliged to provide 4G or comparable internet access across the entire project. Including on an area of 64 km2 (about 28 square miles) which is located 85 km (52 miles) off the coast. As you can imagine, there are no data cables going there so no provider to buy the service from. So, the options are: 1) satellite. Which is incredibly expensive, even with the latest update they've done. We won't be able to use the regular satellite because there is nothing nearby to use for reflection (I think that's the term? someone correct me if not) so we'd have to use the GPS-satellites on which the data package is just ridiculously expensive 2) put a cable in ourselves. Not odd and not markedly more expensive since we're laying cables anyways, just add a fiberoptic one in addition to the huge electricity cables. But then, to get the internet spread across the entire area, now that's tricky. We've a few experimental ideas which... I guess we'll see after we've installed them whether they work or not. In theory they should but...

SauceyBlueConfetti
11-19-2014, 12:36 PM
Scenario from my daily life:


I use the internet for almost all communications. Our phones are even contracted through an internet provider.

We had a local "outage" that was never explained about a week ago. It lasted over 8 hours.

I had a client's employee who was being treated at a hospital, and the insurance information was not uploading accurately. Normally, I would email copies of the data to the provider (and/or the carrier asking for an immediate update due to "seeking services), then follow up with a phone call to walk through the issue step by step until resolved. Problem solved. Happens regularly.

With some thinking outside the box, I used my cell phone, photographs of screenshots, and conference calling from my cell to fix the problem.

But, consider this...because of the outages, critical time was wasted. The hospital does actually have the right to request a patient be transferred to another hospital if there is lack of (or lack of proof of) insurance. That could have, in a worst case scenario, resulted in delayed care which could cause severe complications up to death. It didn't, but what if the unexplained "outage" by the internet carrier was actually more widespread and affected the hospital, the carrier, etc? What if it affected all systems, including my cell access?

What if the outage was in fact a test run of slowing services? Would that actually shock anyone?

Saying living without the internet isn't life threatening isn't really accurate in today's world. The reliance we have as businesses on the internet is mindboggling.


/endhijack

Kimon
11-19-2014, 06:14 PM
Cruz also has a good shot (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/aug/20/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president/) at facing Hillary in 2016. These are the rumored top GOP contenders (hopefully I am not forgetting anyone):

Ted Cruz (Texas senator)
Rand Paul (Kentucky senator, libertarian bent; son of Ron Paul, Tea Party godfather)
Chris Christie (scandal-ridden New Jersey governor, proud asshole)
Scott Walker (Wisconsin governor, very dull, yet very controversial)
Marco Rubio? (where has he been lately?)
Paul Ryan? (I'm guessing not; he ran last time as VP, and he's young)
Jeb Bush



If the Republicans have any common sense, Rand Paul will be their nominee. His combination of libertarianism and anti-imperialism make him by far the most likely of those lot to win the actual election, as he is the only of those that could realistically steal a lot of votes from democrats. The anti-war message doomed his father's numerous campaigns, that is likely no longer the case after years of war weariness. None of those other guys, except Jeb Bush, would offer such a potential for cross-pollination. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio may both be Latino, but Cruz, besides being obviously ineligible to run, is Cuban. He may appeal to the Cuban community in South Florida, but I doubt his support amongst Latinos would expand much beyond that. And his support outside the ultra-right would be completely non-existent. Rubio's appeal may offer more potential amongst the Latino community, but again, he's Cuban, and he turn-coated immigration reform out of transparent self-interest. Walker and Ryan are still possibilities, but they both seem dull and stupid, and they're from Wisconsin. If they wanted a dull Republican from the Midwest, they'd seem to have better options, and from more important states, in Kasich (Ohio) and Snyder (Michigan).

Davian93
11-19-2014, 06:58 PM
Scenario from my daily life:


I use the internet for almost all communications. Our phones are even contracted through an internet provider.

We had a local "outage" that was never explained about a week ago. It lasted over 8 hours.

I had a client's employee who was being treated at a hospital, and the insurance information was not uploading accurately. Normally, I would email copies of the data to the provider (and/or the carrier asking for an immediate update due to "seeking services), then follow up with a phone call to walk through the issue step by step until resolved. Problem solved. Happens regularly.

With some thinking outside the box, I used my cell phone, photographs of screenshots, and conference calling from my cell to fix the problem.

But, consider this...because of the outages, critical time was wasted. The hospital does actually have the right to request a patient be transferred to another hospital if there is lack of (or lack of proof of) insurance. That could have, in a worst case scenario, resulted in delayed care which could cause severe complications up to death. It didn't, but what if the unexplained "outage" by the internet carrier was actually more widespread and affected the hospital, the carrier, etc? What if it affected all systems, including my cell access?

What if the outage was in fact a test run of slowing services? Would that actually shock anyone?

Saying living without the internet isn't life threatening isn't really accurate in today's world. The reliance we have as businesses on the internet is mindboggling.


/endhijack

Concur, I used to work as a Security Manager for a major medical software company and we had hundreds of servers on our site full of patient information (mainly MRI and other image type info along with a ton of medical records of course). Our firewall and backups were robust to say the least but SBC's example holds up quite well there as it was a major concern for us (and my team of IT security guys) every day. To say our firewall got probed would be putting it mildly. Though we never actually had a serious breach while I was there.

Davian93
11-19-2014, 07:11 PM
If the Republicans have any common sense, Rand Paul will be their nominee. His combination of libertarianism and anti-imperialism make him by far the most likely of those lot to win the actual election, as he is the only of those that could realistically steal a lot of votes from democrats. The anti-war message doomed his father's numerous campaigns, that is likely no longer the case after years of war weariness. None of those other guys, except Jeb Bush, would offer such a potential for cross-pollination. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio may both be Latino, but Cruz, besides being obviously ineligible to run, is Cuban. He may appeal to the Cuban community in South Florida, but I doubt his support amongst Latinos would expand much beyond that. And his support outside the ultra-right would be completely non-existent. Rubio's appeal may offer more potential amongst the Latino community, but again, he's Cuban, and he turn-coated immigration reform out of transparent self-interest. Walker and Ryan are still possibilities, but they both seem dull and stupid, and they're from Wisconsin. If they wanted a dull Republican from the Midwest, they'd seem to have better options, and from more important states, in Kasich (Ohio) and Snyder (Michigan).

Once Rand Paul actually starts making his opinion on a lot of issues known, much of his phantom support will disappear. People like the idea of Rand Paul far more than the actual Rand Paul.

GonzoTheGreat
11-20-2014, 03:47 AM
What if the outage was in fact a test run of slowing services? Would that actually shock anyone?
Sort of, yes. And no, because I'm cynical enough to recognise that some managers may indeed decide to run such a test anyway, despite the things I'm gonna say in the rest of this post.

Net neutrality is not about the kind of thing that you mention here. It is about whether or not providers may prioritise the connection speeds of individual users, not whether or not they may have different speed schemes at all.

Over here, as a private individual, I have a choice of a variety of different connection "types" with my provider. I can take the slowest and cheapest, or I can pay more for a faster connection, or even more for a still faster one. Usually, with the fastest connections, the providers do not guarantee a certain speed, but guarantee that it will be quicker than their other deals and that you "may get a certain high top speed". Whether or not you get that speed then depends on a lot of things, primarily how good your connection is and how many other people in your neighbourhood are also trying to get maximum speed.
A hospital or an insurance company would undoubtedly pay a lot more for a lot more total speed.

That is allowed now, and would still be allowed under net neutrality schemes.
What net neutrality is about is prohibiting Internet providers from looking at the bit packages you are sending and receiving, and giving more (or less) priority to a certain type of traffic compared to others.
Without net neutrality, if a hospital had contracted to get a certain connection speed, the provider would still have to deliver that speed, even if they wanted to rent that bandwidth to Apple instead.

Sarevok
11-20-2014, 07:26 AM
Without net neutrality, if a hospital had contracted to get a certain connection speed, the provider would still have to deliver that speed, even if they wanted to rent that bandwidth to Apple instead.

But of course, when that contract eventually expires, the provider is free to rent it to Apple. Or to charge the hospital double.
Now if that happens, there will probably be some bills passed to make sure critical services like this can keep running. But the thing more people are screaming about is that relatively small services that still create a large amount of web traffic would be screwed over if providers want to.

As to the situation in the Netherlands (since it's come up):
The main phone company KPN was privatised in the 90s or late 80s(?). When internet rolled along, more players wanted to join the field, but obviously were unable to put phone lines in the entire country, so they rented bandwidth from KPN. KPN didn't really want to (they were renting out lines to be used by their competition) but eventually laws were passed requiring KPN to rent lines to other companies at reasonable prices. So when a similar situation as described above were to happen to a Dutch service provided, they're just switch ISP (while still one the same phone connection!).
Tangentially, KPN is now getting kinda screwed since technology became available to send internet over COAX (i.e. tv cable). UPC provides over 75% of the country with tv (it recently took over biggest competitor Ziggo). But UPC is not required to let other people onto it's cable network. Obviously, KPN is protesting this. :)

Gilshalos Sedai
11-20-2014, 12:28 PM
Sorry, y'all. Bryan and I have done our best to kick Ted Cruz out and send him back to Canada. But our votes aren't enough.

~hangs head~ We're just plain outnumbered.

Ivhon
11-20-2014, 01:16 PM
Sorry, y'all. Bryan and I have done our best to kick Ted Cruz out and send him back to Canada. But our votes aren't enough.

~hangs head~ We're just plain outnumbered.

My silver lining to end all silver linings is that if Cruz somehow does get elected President I will be able to say that I dumped a beer on POTUS' head...

Of course Ill be saying that from an ultra-secret baptist rendition facility in Uganda.

Nazbaque
11-20-2014, 02:26 PM
You know I've occasionally wondered, why with all those guns and death penalty mentality, you hardly ever assassinate your presidents or even candidates for the office.

Ivhon
11-20-2014, 02:41 PM
You know I've occasionally wondered, why with all those guns and death penalty mentality, you hardly ever assassinate your presidents or even candidates for the office.

Give us time. We're pretty much on the brink of another civil war over here, with no indication that the cultural divides are doing anything but growing wider and wider.

That should make everybody feel warm and fuzzy.

Davian93
11-20-2014, 05:01 PM
My silver lining to end all silver linings is that if Cruz somehow does get elected President I will be able to say that I dumped a beer on POTUS' head...

Of course Ill be saying that from an ultra-secret baptist rendition facility in Uganda.

Yeah, we're gonna need an explanation on that.

Davian93
11-20-2014, 05:09 PM
You know I've occasionally wondered, why with all those guns and death penalty mentality, you hardly ever assassinate your presidents or even candidates for the office.

Well...we have had 4 killed in office (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy) out of 45...nearly 10% total...along with several other quite serious attempts. Reagan was almost taken out a year into his Presidency...very close to being killed. Dubya was almost taken out by a grenade in 2005. Ford had shots fired at him in an attempt.

Arthur Bremer tried to kill Nixon before he ended up shooting Gov. Wallace...Nixon's security detail prevented him from getting close enough so he went for the "easier" target a week or so later.

There were serious attempts against Truman and Roosevelt respectively...in both cases, people near them were killed or wounded instead. There was another assassination against Jackson but the gun misfired and Jackson beat the shit out of the attacker with his cane instead.


Its not that they don't try...its just a matter of luck that only 4 have been killed.

And of course, Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr after he was out of office which was a major motivation for Dubya to go into Iraq.

Davian93
11-20-2014, 05:10 PM
Give us time. We're pretty much on the brink of another civil war over here, with no indication that the cultural divides are doing anything but growing wider and wider.

That should make everybody feel warm and fuzzy.

As a fairly liberal person deep in the heart of Texas, I'd say you're the one that has more to be concerned about than I do.


But yes, the current trends in our nation (rich vs poor, the wealth gap, a massive resurgence of racism, ultra-partisanism in politics at a level not seen since the 1850s), yes, we should be worried as a nation and people moving forward.

Ivhon
11-20-2014, 05:12 PM
Yeah, we're gonna need an explanation on that.

Good possibility he was my RA freshman year.

Nazbaque
11-20-2014, 05:17 PM
Well...we have had 4 killed in office (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy) out of 45...nearly 10% total...along with several other quite serious attempts. Reagan was almost taken out a year into his Presidency...very close to being killed. Dubya was almost taken out by a grenade in 2005. Ford had shots fired at him in an attempt.

Arthur Bremer tried to kill Nixon before he ended up shooting Gov. Wallace...Nixon's security detail prevented him from getting close enough so he went for the "easier" target a week or so later.

There were serious attempts against Truman and Roosevelt respectively...in both cases, people near them were killed or wounded instead. There was another assassination against Jackson but the gun misfired and Jackson beat the shit out of the attacker with his cane instead.


Its not that they don't try...its just a matter of luck that only 4 have been killed.

And of course, Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr after he was out of office which was a major motivation for Dubya to go into Iraq.

So it's the lack of those magic bullets that's the problem?

Davian93
11-20-2014, 05:38 PM
Good possibility he was my RA freshman year.

So...are the descriptions of him as "Super smart but an utter asshole sociopath" accurate? Theoretically of course.

Ivhon
11-20-2014, 05:41 PM
So...are the descriptions of him as "Super smart but an utter asshole sociopath" accurate? Theoretically of course.

Dunno. I was black-out drunk most of the year. I was certainly not friends with the brown-nosing tool RA's that nerped about rules all the time.

Terez
11-20-2014, 07:19 PM
Sorry, y'all. Bryan and I have done our best to kick Ted Cruz out and send him back to Canada. But our votes aren't enough.

~hangs head~ We're just plain outnumbered.
I don't blame you naturally, but he does make American politics less boring.

Nazbaque
11-20-2014, 08:08 PM
I don't blame you naturally, but he does make American politics less boring.

The trouble is that politics should be boring. Drama involves things that are dangerous, illegal, immoral, taboo, disgusting and/or freightening. If politics involves one or more of the above it will do so on a national scale. Thus people who make politics interesting are tools of evil.

EDIT: Corrected bad grammar. 4 am made the road of expression bumby and the words went all over the place.

Kimon
11-20-2014, 08:31 PM
The trouble is that politics should be boring. Drama involves things that are dangerous, illegal, immoral, taboo, disgusting and/or freightening. If politics involves these they are one or more of the above on a national scale. Thus people who make politics interesting are tools of evil.

Compared to the stuff I teach, our politics are still boring. Although, admittedly, Obama has been a complete pussy compared to say the Gracchi Brothers, Publius Clodius, and Julius Caesar.

Terez
11-20-2014, 08:37 PM
The trouble is that politics should be boring.
I know. I'm just trying to make lemonade. Chris McDaniel would have been Cruz's best friend in the Senate if he'd won in MS. He was a talented orator, smart, charismatic, and gung ho to shut down the government. I voted twice for my incumbent Republican senator who is senile and was elected the year I was born, all to make sure that McDaniel stayed in MS. You're welcome.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-21-2014, 08:20 AM
I don't blame you naturally, but he does make American politics less boring.

I want him and John Cornyn to GTFO.

Did you know Cornyn was up for re-election? Neither did I. He ran unopposed. The Dems softballed him with an opponent they didn't bother funding.

Texas politics. :mad:

Oatman
11-21-2014, 05:36 PM
Drama involves things that are dangerous, illegal, immoral, taboo, disgusting and/or freightening.

I had no idea that product delivery was dramatic.

Nazbaque
11-21-2014, 06:22 PM
I had no idea that product delivery was dramatic.

Drama involves certain things, but things that fit the descriptions are not necessarily dramatic. However yes, product delivery is dramatic. Were you raised in a cave not knowing that?

Isabel
11-22-2014, 01:50 AM
About net neutrality. Unfortunately, Ted Cruz isn't the only one stupid.
The european commission made a very good proposal to guarantee net neutrality, but i heard the council of europe (with all the individual countries in it) are against it.

https://gigaom.com/2014/11/20/net-neutrality-looks-doomed-in-europe-before-it-even-gets-started/

Morrons....

GonzoTheGreat
11-22-2014, 03:36 AM
Obviously, you're an anti-European who, if you were just given a bit more information (say, an official European anthem) would see why it is such a good idea to let a bunch of politicians decide what voters should want, instead of listening to what voters actually do want. Strangely enough, I seem to be the same kind of anti-European ...

Oatman
11-22-2014, 05:06 AM
However yes, product delivery is dramatic.

Excellent, now I have another argument to use to try to convince the wife to reduce her online shopping.

I also never knew that courier work could potentially be so interesting.

On the topic of net neutrality, unfortunately I think it is going to be inevitable that we lose it, because businesses like money, and politicians like taking businesses money to do things that are not in the best interest of the people who elected them, which will result in businesses making even more money.

If our PM knew what net neutrality was, I'm sure he would be leading the charge to get rid of it. Luckily he still seems to think the internets are all about pirated movies.

Terez
11-22-2014, 05:35 AM
I have only encountered one Australian on the internet who was willing to admit having voted for him. It's like Abbott voters haven't yet discovered the internet, for the most part.

Terez
11-22-2014, 10:57 PM
This one is for Kimon:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/ted-cruz-confused-about-cicero/383066/

Davian93
11-23-2014, 12:50 PM
This one is for Kimon:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/ted-cruz-confused-about-cicero/383066/

He also doesn't understand the moral of Green Eggs and Ham.

Kimon
11-23-2014, 03:27 PM
He also doesn't understand the moral of Green Eggs and Ham.

Nor irony apparently. Cicero was later sent into exile for illegally executing suspected Catiline collaborators without bothering to give them a trial. Cicero's actions were as such essentially executive orders.

Moreover, not only was he exiled for this, but two of his primary victims (he failed to eliminate the main prize - Caesar, who seems quite likely to have been either directly involved in the conspiracy himself, or closely allied with those implicated, as he was the one whose speeches attempted to stop the illegal executions at the time) were relatives of Antony. Antony's stepfather, P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura was the most prominent of those executed illegally, as he was one of the praetors in the year of the conspiracy. The other of course was Antony's uncle, Gaius Antonius, who as Cicero's colleague as consul in 63 BC was tasked with actually defeating Catiline in the field while Cicero cowered in Rome giving speeches and executing his political rivals. Needless to say, Cicero made sure that he was the one that received all the credit for posterity. Two of the myriad reasons why Antony later stapled him piecemeal to the rostra.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-24-2014, 02:08 AM
About net neutrality. Unfortunately, Ted Cruz isn't the only one stupid.
The european commission made a very good proposal to guarantee net neutrality, but i heard the council of europe (with all the individual countries in it) are against it.

https://gigaom.com/2014/11/20/net-neutrality-looks-doomed-in-europe-before-it-even-gets-started/

Morrons....

Well. Seeing as Italy has the current presidency I'm not surprised that it's gotten bogged down - Italy is after UK probably the most anti-EU country in the EU. However, the next 1,5 years (starting January) should be okay-ish, as we'll have Latvia, Luxembourg and then the Netherlands, I don't really see Slovakia or Malta causing much harm on this particular law either... so hopefully it'll get sorted before UK takes the presidency in late 2017.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-24-2014, 08:51 AM
in related news, a new piece of spyware called Regin has been discovered: http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/23/technology/security/regin-malware-symantec/

Though, honestly I had forgotten that Symantec existed any more. Would like to see if/how Kaspersky confirms this.

Isabel
11-24-2014, 11:02 AM
Well. Seeing as Italy has the current presidency I'm not surprised that it's gotten bogged down - Italy is after UK probably the most anti-EU country in the EU. However, the next 1,5 years (starting January) should be okay-ish, as we'll have Latvia, Luxembourg and then the Netherlands, I don't really see Slovakia or Malta causing much harm on this particular law either... so hopefully it'll get sorted before UK takes the presidency in late 2017.

I hope so ;)