Something Random

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
This is what I found in the box from Target when I received the two Blu-rays that I ordered online on Thanksgiving.

HCtrMWA.jpg


I am quite proud of figuring out how to open the cases in under a minute once I found my neodymium magnets (without any aid from the Internet).
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,875
Location
USA
This is what I found in the box from Target when I received the two Blu-rays that I ordered online on Thanksgiving.

I am quite proud of figuring out how to open the cases in under a minute once I found my neodymium magnets (without any aid from the Internet).

I doubt the internet could help find your neodymium magnets. :D
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,875
Location
USA
Apparently the flight begins when the plane leaves the gate even if it goes fucking nowhere for 40 minutes. :mad:
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Apparently the flight begins when the plane leaves the gate even if it goes fucking nowhere for 40 minutes. :mad:
This is new information to you? It's stacked in their favor as much as possible. Departure starts as soon as they pull the jetbridge away from the plane and arrival is the second the wheels touch down on the runway.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,875
Location
USA
This is new information to you? It's stacked in their favor as much as possible. Departure starts as soon as they pull the jetbridge away from the plane and arrival is the second the wheels touch down on the runway.

I checked the two flights previous to mine and it was completely impossible to make a connection under the best of cases.
Yet they would not allow any change until the connection is missed in the air. It's totally BS and now stuck in a strange city for 23 hours. I would have stayed home. :bibber:
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I checked the two flights previous to mine and it was completely impossible to make a connection under the best of cases.
Yet they would not allow any change until the connection is missed in the air. It's totally BS and now stuck in a strange city for 23 hours. I would have stayed home. :bibber:
What airport and what was the connection time? Was it on the same airline or at least codeshare partners? Generally they don't let you book something that creates an impossible to make connection. Some are pretty optimistic like 40 minutes at ATL, but they're not impossible if the flight arrives on time.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,589
Location
Horsens, Denmark
I'm slow. Can you walk me thru your statement. Says your join date is Feb 2002 which is 15 years ago. You said you were 15 when you joined but now you are 37? :scratch:

This is storageforum.net: "SF". Before this place existed, many of us were members of another place; storagereview.com "SR". This is what Lunar was talking about.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
I guess I need to add reading comprehension to my list of faults. :( At my current rate of decline my non-nonsensical post will be indistinguishable from Lunar's in 5-6 years.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I'm back in Europe after being in Mexico last week. This is too much travel around the holidays. Arriving in the early morning in Europe and rolling into work for a full day with limited sleep on the plane isn't my favorite thing either.
 

paugie

Storage is cool
Joined
Dec 13, 2003
Messages
702
Location
Bulacan, Philippines
I remember SR.
Wasn't logging in very often and lost it when most of you left.
Don't remember how, but was glad to find SF after a while.
Learned a lot about PCs from this forum.
It was a long time

Am not too wiggly on my PC hardware now. Last processor upgrade was 4 years (I think) ago. Realized the things I do, don't need much power. Also, I'm a lot more patient now.
And old.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
See you later net neutrality. Fuck.
I doubt much is going to change. They were all subtly traffic shaping anyhow regardless of the law. The internet survived without "net neutrality" for many many years, so I don't really understand all the angst now like the world will end.
 

Chewy509

Wotty wot wot.
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
The most interesting aspect is how this will affect the international community? eg Internation sourced traffic destined for US Based data-centres and even for transient traffic that crossing US soil, Japan/NZ/Australia traffic going to Europe...

Will it break the Internet, not a chance... but it may change how and where traffic is trunked around the world globally...
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Net Neutrality is a nice idea in concept as the name portrays. IE: Not allowing the slowing of traffic. However, I don't trust the political party or the people pushing for what they call "Net Neutrality". They're a bunch of big gov't statists who want to control people and take away their freedoms. They weaponize the gov't bureaucracy (IRS, SEC, FEC, EPA, etc.) against people they don't agree with politically. The idea that they're looking out for the little people and want a free and open Internet is laughable. The Internet grew into what everyone knows and loves without gov't interference. The idea that somehow a gov't regulated Internet is better baffles me. Look at how well their regulation of things works.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
I doubt much is going to change. They were all subtly traffic shaping anyhow regardless of the law. The internet survived without "net neutrality" for many many years, so I don't really understand all the angst now like the world will end.

This comment is internally inconsistent. If they found reason enough to do something when they were not supposed to; why would they not do it more when restrictions are removed.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
I don't trust the connection providers consolidating with the content providers to not construct an artificial barrier to access. The same problem that is easily seen with tv channel packages.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,875
Location
USA
Will they just block sites that are critical of their policies or governments, etc.?
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
This comment is internally inconsistent. If they found reason enough to do something when they were not supposed to; why would they not do it more when restrictions are removed.
The comment is not inconsistent. It simply pointed out that they didn't achieve the stated goal anyhow.

Why is them offering different tiers of service a problem? Why is everything supposed to be a one sizes fits all solution? Why can't Comcast make a deal with Netflix to not "charge" their subscribers for the data Netflix uses if they want? Why should they have to treat Netflix's traffic the same as other streaming services?

I don't trust the connection providers consolidating with the content providers to not construct an artificial barrier to access. The same problem that is easily seen with tv channel packages.
It's ironic that you would pick that as an example, since cable TV is quite heavily regulated also. Clearly regulation of cable, and local governments granting local monopolies to cable companies has not yielded the results consumers wants. The cell phone industry on the other hand has been very minimally regulated and that's where you've got the most competition, the service keeps getting better and more refined toward what customers want, and the prices are going down.

Will they just block sites that are critical of their policies or governments, etc.?
No, that was the next step in plans of the Net Neutrality folks. Equal access to ideas and equal access to the Internet, not just equal treatment of traffic. And of course in an undesirable way. You'd get to pay fees to subsidize the internet of others and they'd be messing around with search results and other things to make sure you were shown opposing viewpoints.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,784
Location
USA
The comment is not inconsistent. It simply pointed out that they didn't achieve the stated goal anyhow.

Why is them offering different tiers of service a problem? Why is everything supposed to be a one sizes fits all solution? Why can't Comcast make a deal with Netflix to not "charge" their subscribers for the data Netflix uses if they want? Why should they have to treat Netflix's traffic the same as other streaming services?

This really depends on if you care to allow equal and fair access to a resource we call the Internet. This also depends if you consider Internet access a vital resource for all who share a diverse background of income. Once you allow highly diversified tiered access the Internet can and likely will devolve into a lopsided mix of what you're allowed access to. What was broken that we need to remove the current net neutrality classification?

There is very little to no competition so if you allow Comcast to make a deal with Netflix, then this cost will eventually get pushed down to the consumers anyway. As Netflix gets bigger they'll eventually cause an unbalance in streaming options putting us right back into the situations we already have with the crappy limited bundles of media access at high cost. Why shouldn't they treat Netflix traffic the same as my traffic to storageforum or any other service? Allowing teiring helps the big get bigger and the small stay small.

It's ironic that you would pick that as an example, since cable TV is quite heavily regulated also. Clearly regulation of cable, and local governments granting local monopolies to cable companies has not yielded the results consumers wants. The cell phone industry on the other hand has been very minimally regulated and that's where you've got the most competition, the service keeps getting better and more refined toward what customers want, and the prices are going down.


No, that was the next step in plans of the Net Neutrality folks. Equal access to ideas and equal access to the Internet, not just equal treatment of traffic. And of course in an undesirable way. You'd get to pay fees to subsidize the internet of others and they'd be messing around with search results and other things to make sure you were shown opposing viewpoints.

I don't see how comparing cellular to Net neutrality makes any kind of valid argument. The internet portion of your so-called competition is not what I've experienced or witnessed. All the large cellular carriers pull their bullshit when it comes to unfair priority and reduced bandwidth manipulation. Prior to the Title II classification, interruptions were the norm for my streaming services. They've since been better and I'd like to not go back.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
What was broken that we need to remove the current net neutrality classification?
What was broken that we needed in the first place. What existing problem did it fix?

As far as why get rid of it? It's ripe for abuse by political operatives, just like we've seen with the SEC, FEC, FTC, EPA, IRS, etc. Just because they haven't gone full tilt crazy yet doesn't mean everything is peachy or will continue to be. I'd rather take my chances with corporations in charge with light regulations than the gov't.

All the large cellular carriers pull their bullshit when it comes to unfair priority and reduced bandwidth manipulation. Prior to the Title II classification, interruptions were the norm for my streaming services. They've since been better and I'd like to not go back.
Correlation does not equal causation. Did Net Neutrality cause a lack of interruptions or did the cellular carriers upgrading their networks fix that? Have the interrupts returned after last week?
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,784
Location
USA
What was broken that we needed in the first place. What existing problem did it fix?

I already stated what it addressed. Again, abuse from carriers to prioritize traffic to suite their needs and agendas. There's a large timeline of public events you can easily google for but if it helps I can post all the events so you can dismiss them all.

As far as why get rid of it? It's ripe for abuse by political operatives, just like we've seen with the SEC, FEC, FTC, EPA, IRS, etc. Just because they haven't gone full tilt crazy yet doesn't mean everything is peachy or will continue to be. I'd rather take my chances with corporations in charge with light regulations than the gov't.


Correlation does not equal causation. Did Net Neutrality cause a lack of interruptions or did the cellular carriers upgrading their networks fix that? Have the interrupts returned after last week?

The system in-place was already being abused by corporate and political operatives. I'd possibly agree with your agenda if there weren't so many roadblocks already in place to allow expansion and competition within internet carriers in both localized towns/cities as well as central backbones. If we had competition there, then sure, get the government regulation out of it. However, the major providers lobbied hard with serious financial baking making it near impossible for anyone to expand the provision of internet...Google fiber for example. Very large company who can't expand due to policy already in-place with great financial cost to make any progress in various cities and towns.

I'm well aware correlation does not equal causation. Yes Net Neutrality assisted in the lack of interruptions and possibly yes carriers upgraded their networks, but the two are mutually exclusive for that matter. I was not expecting interruptions to return after last week...again, correlation does not equal causation as you so pointed out. The recent change still has to go through additional legal work before any changes can begin. If anything they will slowly introduce these changes so people don't notice a drastic change to associate with the changed legislation.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
What was broken that we needed in the first place.
Near monopolies abusing customers lack of choice. It's all about preserving consumer choice.

As far as why get rid of it? It's ripe for abuse by political operatives, just like we've seen with the SEC, FEC, FTC, EPA, IRS, etc.
That's some real paranoid stuff right there. As a network engineer I'm can't even imagine how a more open internet is more ripe for abuse from TLAs.

Just because they haven't gone full tilt crazy yet doesn't mean everything is peachy or will continue to be.

Wait a minute, did you just switch sides? Uh nope. Because the providers have already shown a desire to throttle; while the government conspiracy is still in your head.

Corporations only answer to large stockholders. At least theoretically the government answers to the people.

Now that the owners of your pipe can create fast lanes, they can make money off of people buying their connections AND a vendor who might want a fast lane. Now that the owners of the pipes want to become content and service creators, it's just a matter of time before preferential access is given to a home grown service over a well used service.

Whatever services they additionally provide, the pipes should be classified as common carrier, just like telephone service. Common carrier: “to serve upon reasonable request without unreasonable discrimination at a just and reasonable price and with adequate care. ... Common carriage was codified as a federal statute in the US in 1887, originally with the railroads in mind. In 1910, the act was modified to include telephone and telegraph companies. In 1934, the FCC was established to enforce these laws.

Then, in 2002, the story starts to gets complicated. The take-away is that when cable TV companies started providing Internet access, the FCC broke from what had been its practice, and decided not to treat the broadband they delivered as a type of common carriage."

https://ting.com/blog/getting-straight-about-common-carriers-and-title-ii/amp/
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
And now the FTC will be in charge instead of the FCC. They can still fall afoul of the Sherman Antitrust Act and other laws and regulations against monopolies. Most of the apocalyptic scenarios people are envisioning are already illegal by statute without the FCC's involvement.

Speaking of monopolies abusing customer's lack of choice... how about Google / YouTube and others censoring content they don't agree with?
 
Top