Topic: Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility - page 2. (Read 8097 times)
(Also, on the very slim chance he posted anything worth reading, let me know. It's possible I was too fast with my ignore button, but based on the quality of the first post of his I read, I kinda doubt it.)
Haha, don't worry. You didn't miss anything. More socialist this, socialist that. Never mind that net neutrality has been how the internet has worked ever since it came into being. No, now that the FCC might change the classification to keep net neutrality in the wake of the court case that invalidated the original rule, all of a sudden NOW it's 'fucking socialism.' Hilarious how far up your ass you have to have your head to ignore the facts. Probably Ted Cruz posting under his internet screen name.
The following applies to you as well.
Hi guys, fucking communist dumbass here.
It is going to be hilarious to watch you and your fellow comrades here become skeletons of your former selves in the coming Gulags.
You are actually wishing and fighting for that outcome for yourself.
I suppose you missed the relevant logic upthread, so I will quote it again for readers that are interested in the truth.
You can do whatever you please. I'm backing the side that's the most right.
No little retarded grasshopper, you are fostering the takeover by corporations in cahoots with government corruption.
...
You are apparently too retarded to understand that "net neutrality" existed as a natural result of the free market and Obama is preaching that we need government to sustain or implement (regulate) the concept, which is a fucking lie and how they will actually destroy the concept.
Those who are bitching about not having net access in their communities are either wanting some subsidy from the government to drive service to their uneconomic rural location or their community is already suffering from lack of competition due to over regulation and regulatory capture by the vested interests. The free market did not fail to provide "net neutrality". Adding more government regulation only makes it worse!
You pontificate about shit which you don't know about, because ... well let the progenitor of the term "open source" explain it to you:
Those who can’t build, talk
Eric like myself was actually active in building the internet:
You are apparently too retarded to understand that "net neutrality" existed as a natural result of the free market and Obama is preaching that we need government to sustain or implement (regulate) the concept, which is a fucking lie and how they will actually destroy the concept.
Those who are bitching about not having net access in their communities are either wanting some subsidy from the government to drive service to their uneconomic rural location or their community is already suffering from lack of competition due to over regulation and regulatory capture by the vested interests. The free market did not fail to provide "net neutrality". Adding more government regulation only makes it worse!
You pontificate about shit which you don't know about, because ... well let the progenitor of the term "open source" explain it to you:
Those who can’t build, talk
Quote from: Eric S Raymond author of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"
Those who can’t build, talk
Posted on 2011-07-28 by Eric Raymond
One of the side-effects of using Google+ is that I’m getting exposed to a kind of writing I usually avoid – ponderous divagations on how the Internet should be and the meaning of it all written by people who’ve never gotten their hands dirty actually making it work. No, I’m not talking about users – I don’t mind listening to those. I’m talking about punditry about the Internet, especially the kind full of grand prescriptive visions. The more I see of this, the more it irritates the crap out of me. But I’m not in the habit of writing in public about merely personal complaints; there’s a broader cultural problem here that needs to be aired.
Posted on 2011-07-28 by Eric Raymond
One of the side-effects of using Google+ is that I’m getting exposed to a kind of writing I usually avoid – ponderous divagations on how the Internet should be and the meaning of it all written by people who’ve never gotten their hands dirty actually making it work. No, I’m not talking about users – I don’t mind listening to those. I’m talking about punditry about the Internet, especially the kind full of grand prescriptive visions. The more I see of this, the more it irritates the crap out of me. But I’m not in the habit of writing in public about merely personal complaints; there’s a broader cultural problem here that needs to be aired.
Eric like myself was actually active in building the internet:
- Eminent Domains: The First Time I Changed History
- World Without Web
- A world without “ESR”
- Eric's GIF code in nearly every open source software in the world. He reminisced about it.
- He also did work on libpng that nearly every open source software uses
- Android development pulls hot chicks. Who knew?
- Emacs git conversion is done at one month from his 57th birthday.
- An Open Letter to Chris DoddQuote from: Eric RaymondI’m talking about the actual engineers who built the Internet and keep it running, who write the software you rely on every day of your life in the 21st century.
I’m one of those engineers – you rely on my code every time you use a browser or a smartphone or a game console. I’m not exactly a leader among them as you would understand the term, because we don’t have those and don’t want them. But I am a well-known philosopher/elder of the tribe (I’ll name two others later in this letter), and also one of our few public spokespersons. In the late 1990s I helped found the open-source software movement.
(Also, on the very slim chance he posted anything worth reading, let me know. It's possible I was too fast with my ignore button, but based on the quality of the first post of his I read, I kinda doubt it.)
Haha, don't worry. You didn't miss anything. More socialist this, socialist that. Never mind that net neutrality has been how the internet has worked ever since it came into being. No, now that the FCC might change the classification to keep net neutrality in the wake of the court case that invalidated the original rule, all of a sudden NOW it's 'fucking socialism.' Hilarious how far up your ass you have to have your head to ignore the facts. Probably Ted Cruz posting under his internet screen name.
when I read "Obama wants to control the World Wide Web", I wonder why people spin the situation into something it's not. The answer of course is because they're being intentionally dishonest or ignorant. The FCC rules will affect people in Belgium or South Africa in no way. But doubtful that matters much in an internet debate, because you've identified your boogeyman and all non-facts must be deployed in order to stop him!
Apparently you are young lacking real world experience (i.e. you live in a delusional fantasy) which explains your ignorant idealism.
Btw I am anti-government, not partisan. Or at least pro-small local townhall-style (i.e. decentralized) government, not national, regional, nor international. I don't like any politician regardless of what political party they claim to belong to.
When I read "0bama wants to control the World Wide Web internet", I wonder how people from belgium or South Africa feel about that change in their life 
0bama is a dud
0bama is a dud
I guess BOTH of you failed to note the European cooperation on the following screen capture.
Wilikon I am warning you now that you are highly underestimating the push towards a global governance and a global police state. That is what this coming collapse is all about, and Europe is going to collapse hard.
Both of you will realize I am correct within a horrific world that you will be in within about 2 - 3 years.
Those who want Obama's 'net neutrality' bullshit, will end up with this:
http://www.coindesk.com/day-reckoning-dark-markets-hundreds-illicit-domains/
http://www.coindesk.com/day-reckoning-dark-markets-hundreds-illicit-domains/
When I read "0bama wants to control the World Wide Web internet", I wonder how people from belgium or South Africa feel about that change in their life
when I read "Obama wants to control the World Wide Web", I wonder why people spin the situation into something it's not. The answer of course is because they're being intentionally dishonest or ignorant. The FCC rules will affect people in Belgium or South Africa in no way. But doubtful that matters much in an internet debate, because you've identified your boogeyman and all non-facts must be deployed in order to stop him!
That's nice, but rather irrelevant.
See: 59% of Americans Oppose NSA Program
Or: 52% of Americans feel taxes are too high
Being in the majority of public opinion doesn't make it good policy. Further, it doesn't even suggest they understand the issue in the slightest. If you asked these same people if they wanted Comcast or Cox to have the power to slow down internet traffic to certain websites, you would not get 61% saying yes. It's all about the framing of the question, this one used the buzz word "government regulation." They sampled 1,000 people who may or may not be knowledgeable about the topic, framed the question as one about government regulation, and got this result. Meanwhile, the FCC site has over 4,000,000 comments asking the FCC to reclassify ISPs from people who are interested enough in the situation to educate themselves on the topic and then leave a comment on the FCC website on the matter. To me, the latter anecdote is far more significant than 1000 people who may not even understand the situation and are responding to the way the question is framed.
So the people should trust this government now, more than ever based on its great trusted track record?
You can do whatever you please. I'm backing the side that's the most right.
I have nothing against people with a belief they cannot prove with science either.
"My side is the most right"
There's no science to this. If you want to prop your opinion up with a bunch of baseless assumptions though, the root one being that everything the government does is wrong, that's fine. Doesn't make for a compelling case though.
This is a fight between two evils.... Govt. With regulations and corruption or corporations with profit. Both are trying to take internet in their control. That's why decentralization is best...
They only good way in my opinion is that other big internet corporation go with the net neutrality, and people start to support them. But, half of the world is ignorant of this issue...
They only good way in my opinion is that other big internet corporation go with the net neutrality, and people start to support them. But, half of the world is ignorant of this issue...
When I read "0bama wants to control the World Wide Web internet", I wonder how people from belgium or South Africa feel about that change in their life
0bama is a dud. He lost big and acts like a 6 year old now. None of those things were a priority, but since he realizes he will be remembered as being worst than Nixon (as the watergate scandal did not have any lethal casualties, as in dead people) he is pushing for stuff, spaghetti on the wall to see what will stick. He is a man child and everything he does was and is about him. He did not even care enough about the democrats, and now some of them realizes that too, but too late.
That's nice, but rather irrelevant.
See: 59% of Americans Oppose NSA Program
Or: 52% of Americans feel taxes are too high
Being in the majority of public opinion doesn't make it good policy. Further, it doesn't even suggest they understand the issue in the slightest. If you asked these same people if they wanted Comcast or Cox to have the power to slow down internet traffic to certain websites, you would not get 61% saying yes. It's all about the framing of the question, this one used the buzz word "government regulation." They sampled 1,000 people who may or may not be knowledgeable about the topic, framed the question as one about government regulation, and got this result. Meanwhile, the FCC site has over 4,000,000 comments asking the FCC to reclassify ISPs from people who are interested enough in the situation to educate themselves on the topic and then leave a comment on the FCC website on the matter. To me, the latter anecdote is far more significant than 1000 people who may not even understand the situation and are responding to the way the question is framed.
So the people should trust this government now, more than ever based on its great trusted track record?
You can do whatever you please. I'm backing the side that's the most right.
I have nothing against people with a belief they cannot prove with science either.
"My side is the most right"
This is a fight between two evils.... Govt. With regulations and corruption or corporations with profit. Both are trying to take internet in their control. That's why decentralization is best...
They only good way in my opinion is that other big internet corporation go with the net neutrality, and people start to support them. But, half of the world is ignorant of this issue...
They only good way in my opinion is that other big internet corporation go with the net neutrality, and people start to support them. But, half of the world is ignorant of this issue...
The problem is some of them are ignorant and/or too dumb or partisan to want to understand the issue, and some of them are like UnunoctiumTesticles, who just yell as loudly as they can in order to convince you about how wrong you are. I blocked him for being a total git in another thread because his posts are utterly below the minimum intelligence threshold required for me to read them, but if that other thread is any indication, his posts here are full of insults and vulgarities, and light on any actual point or worthwhile information to back his point.
The debate can be enhanced by following this lead, at least until he learns how to communicate without being... well, so god damn typical of internet posters. I'm not holding my breath.
(Also, on the very slim chance he posted anything worth reading, let me know. It's possible I was too fast with my ignore button, but based on the quality of the first post of his I read, I kinda doubt it.)
If you are young and idealistic little socialist fuck, you need to wakeup!
Obama’s Regulation of the Internet – Got a License to Say That? (listen to the audio interview and learn something)
Do you have any clue how sneaky the fox (Obama et al) is?
Obamacare Deliberately Written with 33,000 Pages of Regulations To Hide the Truth
Obama’s Regulation of the Internet – Got a License to Say That? (listen to the audio interview and learn something)
Do you have any clue how sneaky the fox (Obama et al) is?
Obamacare Deliberately Written with 33,000 Pages of Regulations To Hide the Truth
This is a fight between two evils.... Govt. With regulations and corruption or corporations with profit. Both are trying to take internet in their control. That's why decentralization is best...
They only good way in my opinion is that other big internet corporation go with the net neutrality, and people start to support them. But, half of the world is ignorant of this issue...
They only good way in my opinion is that other big internet corporation go with the net neutrality, and people start to support them. But, half of the world is ignorant of this issue...
Decentralization is the key. (the socialist idiots don't realize that net neutrality was a natural result from lack of centralized control)
And we have to take back the internet from the Facebook, Google, etc..
I am working on this now.
Any one who wants to help will find the relevant projects as they are launched and get involved (decentralized structure). That means I don't need to tell you what I am working on. If they are significant, you will know. It doesn't matter whose name it is on it. What matters is the technology and the market reaction.
LEARN TO PROGRAM!
This is a fight between two evils.... Govt. With regulations and corruption or corporations with profit. Both are trying to take internet in their control. That's why decentralization is best...
They only good way in my opinion is that other big internet corporation go with the net neutrality, and people start to support them. But, half of the world is ignorant of this issue...
They only good way in my opinion is that other big internet corporation go with the net neutrality, and people start to support them. But, half of the world is ignorant of this issue...
You can do whatever you please. I'm backing the side that's the most right.
No little retarded grasshopper, you are fostering the takeover by corporations in cahoots with government corruption.
That's nice, but rather irrelevant.
See: 59% of Americans Oppose NSA Program
Or: 52% of Americans feel taxes are too high
Being in the majority of public opinion doesn't make it good policy. Further, it doesn't even suggest they understand the issue in the slightest. If you asked these same people if they wanted Comcast or Cox to have the power to slow down internet traffic to certain websites, you would not get 61% saying yes. It's all about the framing of the question, this one used the buzz word "government regulation." They sampled 1,000 people who may or may not be knowledgeable about the topic, framed the question as one about government regulation, and got this result. Meanwhile, the FCC site has over 4,000,000 comments asking the FCC to reclassify ISPs from people who are interested enough in the situation to educate themselves on the topic and then leave a comment on the FCC website on the matter. To me, the latter anecdote is far more significant than 1000 people who may not even understand the situation and are responding to the way the question is framed.
So the people should trust this government now, more than ever based on its great trusted track record?
You can do whatever you please. I'm backing the side that's the most right.
Oh, a guy named "UnunoctiumTesticles" thinks I'm a fool. 
I can live with that.
I can live with that.
You fucking Communists and Socialists.......
lol do people honestly consider Obama to be a socialist? Yeah I'm really sure the 'free'market will have our interests at heart....ISP's censoring the internet sounds like a great idea.
Those who want Obama's 'net neutrality' bullshit, will end up with this:
http://www.coindesk.com/day-reckoning-dark-markets-hundreds-illicit-domains/
I don't know where you are getting your information. Net-neutrality is exactly the opposite of what you are saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
Bullshit! You don't have a fucking clue.
... probably while you were still shitting your diapers. It was essentially built into the protocols at the base level. You really have no clue what you're talking about.
Get off my lawn kiddie. I was coding the world's first WYSIWYG full featured, commercial graphical word processor (Neocept's Word Up) in the mid-1980s.
There was never an overlord requiring net neutrality. The interoperability of the net exists because it is in every providers incentive to join the larger scale of the homogeneous internet. The internet killed America Online's proprietary walled garden model without any fucking regulation you clueless wannabe. The internet continues to power past walled garden promulgators such as Apple Computer.
What this political bullshit "Net Neutrality" means is telling you that we need regulation to accomplish what the free market has already done. And this is a political lie used to sucker you into getting exactly opposite of what the free market has been providing you.
You fucking Communists and Socialists are God Damn fucking plague on this earth.
Be Gone!
Net neutrality is how the Internet functioned [for] long...
Correct.
http://www.coindesk.com/day-reckoning-dark-markets-hundreds-illicit-domains/
^^^ Thanks for posting that. That is exactly what I have been saying about it all along. This net neutrality is not and never has been about protecting the average user's rights. It is simply about the government gaining control so that it can monitor and censor (and prosecute) what we say and do on what used to be a free internet.
I don't know where you are getting your information. Net-neutrality is exactly the opposite of what you are saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
Bullshit! You don't have a fucking clue.
... probably while you were still shitting your diapers. It was essentially built into the protocols at the base level. You really have no clue what you're talking about.
Get off my lawn kiddie. I was coding the world's first WYSIWYG full featured, commercial graphical word processor (Neocept's Word Up) in the mid-1980s.
There was never an overlord requiring net neutrality. The interoperability of the net exists because it is in every providers incentive to join the larger scale of the homogeneous internet. The internet killed America Online's proprietary walled garden model without any fucking regulation you clueless wannabe. The internet continues to power past walled garden promulgators such as Apple Computer.
What this political bullshit "Net Neutrality" means is telling you that we need regulation to accomplish what the free market has already done. And this is a political lie used to sucker you into getting exactly opposite of what the free market has been providing you.
You fucking Communists and Socialists are God Damn fucking plague on this earth.
Be Gone!
Net neutrality is how the Internet functioned [for] long...
Correct.
they should be grateful for the internet for the countries of Europe and America today have a capable speed, compared to the speed of the Internet in developing countries are still below average, for Internet users is still very little used in developing countries, there are still many people who are not familiar with the Internet, it is due to inadequate infrastructure, so if there are some vendors who want to develop internet network up to the reach of the FO cable, then it really can help to the development of society ...
This should be an easy one for anyone who wants a free internet. It's not a government takeover of the internet. The legislation seeks to KEEP net-neutrality. The other choice is to let ISPs decide what you will see on the net and restrict your viewing to what is most profitable for them. Is that what you want? What if your ISP does not like bitcoin? Unlike now, it would be easy to cut you off from BTC sites and block ports related to wallets. If you are savvy you may be able to get around some restrictions, but you will always be in a struggle to see what you want. Do you really think big media has your interest at heart? I do not.
You are a fool:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9534852
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9514682
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9515162
This should be an easy one for anyone who wants a free internet. It's not a government takeover of the internet. The legislation seeks to KEEP net-neutrality. The other choice is to let ISPs decide what you will see on the net and restrict your viewing to what is most profitable for them. Is that what you want? What if your ISP does not like bitcoin? Unlike now, it would be easy to cut you off from BTC sites and block ports related to wallets. If you are savvy you may be able to get around some restrictions, but you will always be in a struggle to see what you want. Do you really think big media has your interest at heart? I do not.
Jump to: