This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Anonymous (User Deleted)
Pages: 1 ... 120121122 123124 ... 212
3631
« on: February 28, 2015, 09:44:07 PM »
i had a dream LC and Kupo went snowboarding with me. Kupo was in his late 20s and LC was 25-ish and both of them looked nothing like what they probably look like.
the mountain was trash and we left early.
but im convinced i got mad and woke up because they were better then me.
3632
« on: February 28, 2015, 09:34:29 PM »
every other week,
no, not really
It's a figure of speech.
3633
« on: February 28, 2015, 07:26:25 PM »
daily dose
whoa that looks trippy when i scroll the page
3634
« on: February 28, 2015, 07:23:35 PM »
Is this supposed to be a counter argument?
I doubt you're being serious >.> Being against the degradation of women=/=being an SJW
Kupo pls
<.< Well while we've changed the subject, if it's degrading for both genders, or if they're doing it on their own accord, is it really degrading at all?
3635
« on: February 28, 2015, 07:13:08 PM »
So you admit you wouldn't like family members behaving like that.
Pretty much proves me right and there's no more discussion to be had. It's inteinsically wrong in the sense that it's degrading to women.
>being this much of an SJW chally pls (and no lol, men do it too and it's degrading to men, but no one ever complains about that)
3636
« on: February 28, 2015, 06:20:11 PM »
3637
« on: February 28, 2015, 05:46:57 PM »
That's a shame. Everyone seems to be in a rush to throw away their dignity these days.
sorry we don't live in the 1900's no more. if someone wants to get their titties out let them get their titties out. as long as it's their decision who are we to judge
It's still undignified.
Because people like you make it undignified.
People like me?
Also, I fail to see how behaving in a promiscuous manner, or making naked pictures of oneself available for the sexual gratification of others, is dignified.
It's undignified, unethical, and thus, unacceptable.
Who cares? Why should you care? What purpose does that position have to further the greater good?
Would you like your mother, sister, or daughter acting like whores?
Um, no I wouldn't. lol. It's none of my business if they're not breaking the law or putting me or themselves in danger. There are more important things to worry about in life than other people 'embarrassing' themselves or whatever. That has nothing to do with Judaeo-Christian values. It's just straight up dishonorable and shames the entire family. That's a load of bullshit. Firstly, you're helping Napalm conflate ethics with honor. They are two distinctly different things. Without God in the equation, who is there to define honor? Well, people. Proving my initial point, it's people who make something shameful. What's dishonorable in one setting can be honorable elsewhere. It has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. Enlighten me, how exactly is it unethical to take dirty pictures of oneself and anonymously post them on the Internet?
3638
« on: February 28, 2015, 08:02:28 AM »
ROY'S OUR BOY 
3639
« on: February 27, 2015, 09:34:55 PM »
tars is love tars is life
the bots were so creepy and unnerving at first but by the end of the film i knew i wanted one
3640
« on: February 27, 2015, 09:33:30 PM »
oh coolio
This is great news.
3641
« on: February 27, 2015, 09:14:34 PM »
People should conduct themselves in an ethical and honorable manner.
I despise this all-too popular concept that unless something you do negatively affects another, it's perfectly okay. Such attitudes simply enable unethical behavior, allowing it to spread, and ironically, affect others.
The problem here is that you have a completely arbitrary stance. There is absolutely zero basis for your so-called 'ethical' position.
3642
« on: February 27, 2015, 09:08:02 PM »
That's a shame. Everyone seems to be in a rush to throw away their dignity these days.
sorry we don't live in the 1900's no more. if someone wants to get their titties out let them get their titties out. as long as it's their decision who are we to judge
It's still undignified.
Because people like you make it undignified.
People like me?
Also, I fail to see how behaving in a promiscuous manner, or making naked pictures of oneself available for the sexual gratification of others, is dignified.
It's undignified, unethical, and thus, unacceptable.
Who cares? Why should you care? What purpose does that position have to further the greater good?
3643
« on: February 27, 2015, 09:02:03 PM »
That's a shame. Everyone seems to be in a rush to throw away their dignity these days.
sorry we don't live in the 1900's no more. if someone wants to get their titties out let them get their titties out. as long as it's their decision who are we to judge
It's still undignified.
Because people like you make it undignified.
3644
« on: February 27, 2015, 05:41:29 PM »
Thanks, will read later. The original Xbox was rather groundbreaking for what it was. It could play music stored on its built-in hard drive. System parity was of little concern to it. It had elaborate online functionality that was head and shoulders above the competition. It had self-installing DLC. But perhaps most importantly, it brought first-person shooters to popularity on consoles, and proved that Goldeneye 007 wasn't a fluke. It could have failed in so many ways, and it almost did. Yet, it ultimately raised the standards of what was to be expected from video game consoles. Xbox Live is still the *ahem* gold standard for online services, especially compared to their miserable competition...
3645
« on: February 27, 2015, 04:01:30 PM »
Here's my resume. Please make sure to read the entire web page as you consider me for a position. Thank you Kupo
3646
« on: February 27, 2015, 03:21:29 PM »
What reason do you have to believe that? I know you're not trying to say the FCC or the administration are somehow virtuous, as opposed to self-interested.
I'd sooner entrust my rights with the government than corporate America.
3647
« on: February 27, 2015, 03:18:46 PM »
Evidence that most people speaking loudly about this don't know what was actually going on. That's exactly you. That picture is also wrong. It's ironic that so many people conflated this with cable bundles, given that cable is also a utility. There's no reason that services like Netflix couldn't be split up and bundled separately, exactly like cable bundles, which are also regulated by the FCC.
1) If you think it's wrong, then you're failing to grasp the basics of the issue here. It's a scenario, but not the only one. 2) I don't think television falls under the FCC's Title II Classification, but I'm not sure about that.
3648
« on: February 27, 2015, 03:06:01 PM »
This has nothing to do with free services.
By labeling broadband internet as a utility, the FCC is declaring that all infrastructure is open for use and the owners of that infrastructure may not discriminate against companies that use it by charging them money, limiting their access through paywalls, or speed throttling. Basically, the government waited until the infrastructure was developed by private money,
All the romanticized hype about low internet costs and free speech are literally irrelevant to what happened.
In what universe is free speech irrelevant to the Internet? Free speech and Internet costs were the primary concerns of this entire debate. then decided it was theirs to regulate. You make this sound like net neutrality is some newfangled concept. The term itself has been around since at least 2003, and the founder of the World Wide Web has explained that the Web was designed around the concept of neutrality. It's literally one of the central tenets of the Web, and it's worked pretty well so far. While I generally find myself agreeing with net neutrality, the government simply isn't to be trusted to be truthful or to have suffered a sudden attack of integrity.
We all have our interests, by which we operate, and the FCC is no different.
What reason do you have to believe that? Not even WikiLeaks or The Guardian has been blocked by the US government. The same administration that vigorously supports mass surveillance and relentlessly prosecutes whistleblowers has yet to prevent public access to two of the most game-changing leaks in US history, even to the detriment of the government's own interests. You have very little ground on which to base your opinion. ...versus corporations who are under no obligation to grant anybody rights. Corporations can't simply be voted out of office or impeached. They could easily block those sites because it's good for business, and there's little that the average person could do about it. Getting rid of net neutrality would have allowed the ISPs to block sites and services unscrupulously. In reality, this doesn't change much for consumers, if at all.
If you're going to make statements such as this, you don't understand what this is all about. Here's a basic explanation of what net neutrality helps to do and prevent.And here's a hypothetical scenario to help get you started:
3649
« on: February 27, 2015, 01:31:10 PM »
Those are literally the only three options they had.
That is false. That was a manufactured scenario, and you fell for it.
Maybe telling me what the actual scenario was would change my mind.
Well, the actual scenario is that Comcast and other ISPs are greedy and know they would get away with it as soon as net neutrality disappeared. I'm not even sure what that means.
The ability to effectively censor a Web site or Internet service--is that not a power usually exercised by governments? ISPs wanted that, and they almost got it. Not really, the crux of the matter is that services are not free and they never will be. You're never entitled to somebody else's labour except for insofar as it prevents you from abject poverty.
What? This has nothing to do with free services. We're not talking about the idea of the internet here. We're talking about data traveling over a broadband network.
These networks make up the backbone of the Internet.
3650
« on: February 27, 2015, 12:58:47 PM »
The Internet isn't a road--it's the most important thing to have ever happened to freedom of speech.
I'm not talking about the internet any more than I'm talking about the idea of travel. I'm talking about the physical infrastructure of communication companies.
FCC literally has nothing to do with the internet, and everything to do with broadband internet access. This is not about free speech.
The Internet is not a form of travel. It is not in any way comparable. The FCC has to do with any form of electronic communication within the US, whether you like it or not. That is the authority given to it by Congress. The Internet isn't a road--it's the most important thing to have ever happened to freedom of speech.
That's a category error if I ever saw one.
Even if I were to concede freedom of speech as a valid benefit of the Internet--which is true--it's also a service. You are entitled only to what will keep you from dying. You don't get to stand on Walmart's roof calling for a Communist revolution if they don't want you there; private actors are not obligated to facilitate your freedom of speech.
On the contrary--they agreed do so when they let me sign their own contract, and when they decided to operate within the US. They want to have governmental authority without any of the accountability, essentially--but they can't have it both ways. You are entitled only to what will keep you from dying. That is an egregious slippery slope. Those are literally the only three options they had.
That is false. That was a manufactured scenario, and you fell for it.
3651
« on: February 27, 2015, 12:45:39 PM »
Your face is overrated.
3652
« on: February 27, 2015, 12:42:03 PM »
I build a toll road. You pay me to drive your car on it. My road is designed for many small cars mainly, each contributing. Then a bus company (let's call it Netcar) comes along and offers to give tons of people rides for a small fee, and these buses don't have to pay a toll for each person. Eventually, these buses take up over a third of all traffic on the road, but I'm not getting paid for its usage. In addition, my toll has been forced to be lower and lower every year. Each year, it costs 30% less to use the road. So now I'm making pennies and 1/3 of my traffic isn't even paying to use the roads. Now, other companies come along and want to use the stuff I built to run their bus companies and use my infrastructure to build more roads (I already have the asphalt and trucks ready). To account for the massive increase in usage and the decrease in revenue I'm getting, I'm forced to restrict the buses and charge more for the cars. People say this isn't fair, and when other companies with very little investment use my equipment to build more roads and offer the same or lower prices, the customers accuse me of wringing them for cash. When I go to the government about it, they pass a measure that allows those other companies to use my roads, my equipment, my infrastructure to run their business, all without chipping in for my initial massive investment which laid the foundation for all of the roads for everyone. That's legal because now it's regulated, meaning I lose the ability to charge different users (like the buses or other high-use vehicles) more than I would a little car, and I lose the ability to make faster lanes for those that would like to pay for it (although this is largely hypothetical now).
Heavyhanded analogy aside, this isn't the cyber-liberty battle that it has been talked up to be.
The Internet isn't a road--it's the most important thing to have ever happened to freedom of speech.
3653
« on: February 27, 2015, 12:33:30 PM »
Is there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?
http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/
This is the thing that comes to mind <.<
If anything, that's evidence of the market's ability to self-correct. Netflix is a competitor to Comcast, yet they reached a deal to provide non-preferential partnership wherein Netflix pays a fee for the use of Comcast's infrastructure.
I'm worried this FCC decision has done little except cement the existent monopolies.
It seemed more like Comcast extorting Netflix so that it's customers (Netflix) won't be having throttled/shite connections giving a borderline useless service <.<
Netflix then has to pay a premium to Comcast so that it's customers don't cancel their subscriptions because they get awful quality video.
Netflix streaming accounts for 35% of all U.S. web traffic. [Sauce]
Comcast was forced to either (a) build new infrastructure to support the growing Netflix traffic, (b) not build new infrastructure, slowing everyone down or (c) throttle Netflix streams so that the other 65% of traffic isn't slow as fuck.
"Forced" That's not even true.
3654
« on: February 27, 2015, 12:19:49 PM »
fuck off, 2015
3655
« on: February 27, 2015, 11:57:46 AM »
Irvine, CA. The only ISP available to us is Cox Communications. Luckily, they aren't complete assholes so it's not so bad, but since there's no competition, there's no reason for them to lower costs or provide better service.
I'd like to point out that local monopolies are a very common thing, and losing net neutrality would have only made things worse for start-up ISPs. It'd hardly call that extortion. Despite being internet-based, they're still a direct competitor to Comcast's broadcasting.
Comcast and Verizon, aside from having their own Internet services, also offer television. Netflix is one of their biggest competitors in that context. Virtually every major TV and Internet provider has its own on-demand service that directly competes with Netflix, and Netflix is beating them. So what if they all charged Netflix? They only made $220 million in 2013. While we don't know the financial details, we can assume the telecommunications companies would want a lot. The last time Netflix raised the subscription cost, their stock and subscriber growth took a hit.The perfect storm would be all of the ISPs ganging up on Netflix. Netflix would have to agree to the deals, or suffer half-assed streaming speeds, of which they would certainly take the fall, or there would be some absurd feud like what happens all the time between TV channels and providers where both sides point fingers and nobody can watch the channel until an agreement is reached. Netflix would hike their prices again just to keep up, then their growth sputters and they get bought out or, worst case, go bankrupt. Either way, Netflix as we know it would cease to exist, and the TV companies would conveniently have their common enemy out of the picture. If that's not extortion, then I don't know what is.
3656
« on: February 27, 2015, 09:48:51 AM »
Uh, well the most expensive game I have is either Halo 3 Legendary edition, or Metroid Prime Trilogy with the tin. As for in-game items? Well, I'm not sure. I have to think about this one. I have a few rare items like the Recon helmet, GameStop chestplate and blue flames in Halo: Reach. Most of the stuff I have is obscure, one-time-only pre-order stuff like that. One particular thing that comes to mind, however, is the Wi-Fi Event Mew in HGSS. I can count on my fingers the number of times Mew has been made available in the US. Ah, but of course, it's virtually worthless now because Pokémon hacking was so easy back then. Bank trades are more trustworthy nowadays, and the Bank has done a bit to enforce legit Pokes, but not much...  I'll have to get back to you on that >.> but I don't think I have anything terribly valuable in my games.
3657
« on: February 27, 2015, 07:47:49 AM »
It's next Friday.
When did the admins change their color to black?
...What do you mean?
Dress joke.
fucking lol
3658
« on: February 27, 2015, 07:45:02 AM »
Spoiler government interference in the internet and motions against free expression rights
Spoiler Why do you say that? Why would classifying this as a utility remove the freedom of expression?
Spoiler Any time the state can dictate what is done with a communication system, you open the door for that kind of thing. It's 3am here so I may not be thinking straight.
I'm inclined to think that won't be the case. They've enforced net neutrality for years now, and that hasn't happened yet. In a way, Title II is more like legal maneuvering than a substantial policy change--same concept as always, but the technicalities of the rules mean that it is now better insulated from lawsuits. On the other hand, would you really prefer freedom of speech be placed in the hands of corporations? Obligated to maintain a positive public image, profits, and happy stockholders before the Constitution (or an approval rating for that matter)? Unlike with politicians, removing corporate executives from power isn't exactly a publicly democratic process.
3659
« on: February 26, 2015, 08:15:29 PM »
I'm not sure. If I did, it was a REALLY long time ago... game-wise.
3660
« on: February 26, 2015, 03:58:57 PM »
That's the most colorful Instagram I've ever seen.
Pages: 1 ... 120121122 123124 ... 212
|
Show Posts