I see. You think the number of prosecutions of the executive branch, BY the executive branch, is a reasonable measurement between administrations of which is more corrupt.

That's so cute. And it's so stupid that it physically hurts.

The rest of your comment was nothing more than lies and ad hominems. Literally, there was nothing else in that comment that didn't fall into that category. Especially your claim that speaking to my assumed "culture, ancestry, location of birth" in your argument is not an ad hominem. That's fucking textbook ad hominem.

Since you didn't say how the examples "suck," the examples therefore still stand, and therefore your assertion that they are "just like the rest" -- which ignores the examples of how they are not -- is baseless, and ignored.

Much moreso than Republicans, as the examples -- which remain undisputed -- demonstrate.

Ad hominem.

Non sequitur.

What's that got to do with whether "people who 'donate' to political campaigns ... expect a return on their investments?"

And you did tell me that I am "full of shit" ... but you've not backed it up. Still waiting.

a. He is not my idol
b. You're lying that Regan's is "[o]n official record as the most corrupt administration ever"

Didn't you used to better at this? Maybe I am misremembering.

I didn't mention donating to campaigns, unless you're referring to collective bargaining leading to politicians giving handouts to employees in exchange for donations and votes ... which is obviously true, which is one of many reasons I say Democrats are more anti-capitalist.

But I don't think you're talking about that, so I don't have any idea what you think I said here, but it seems to me that I didn't say it.

Yes, he accepts donations, like all politicians do.

What's wrong with that? This isn't an argument, it's just an attempt to imply something negative, without actually saying anything that is actually negative.

I gave specific examples. Do you have any counterexamples? If not, then you're not actually making an argument here, either.

False.

You're correct on the first point, and incorrect on the second point. There would be far fewer government employees, but no, they would still exist.

But I didn't say these are the correct capitalist positions. I said they are "much more pro-capitalist" than the Democrats. Clearly, if there should be no minimum wage under capitalism -- which I agree is clearly true -- then being against its increase is more pro-capitalist than being in favor of its increase. Further, the one person I mentioned -- Scott Walker -- said just recently that he thinks the minimum wage serves no purpose.

IIRC, astronauts need to do a lot of exercise to counteract the effects of zero g. Wouldn't being legless make this much more difficult?

I imagine a good deal of their exercise equipment requires legs. I'm not saying this is an insurmountable problem, just that I suspect it would be a problem.

Yes, the GOP -- as a whole -- does pay off its cronies. But there are a significant number of prominent Republicans in office who oppose these practices (e.g., Scott Walker). There is not a significant number of Dems who oppose these practices. Further, the Republicans' policies are generally much more pro-capitalist (against raising the minimum wage, against collective bargaining with govt employees, and so on).

So ... no, the GOP is significantly more pro-capitalist than the Dems. Very clearly and easily. They are not, however, as pro-capitalist as I am, or Scott Walker is, etc.

:O WHAT?! Ok, it's pretty good, but still... textmate deserves a mention as well.

Me me me me me me me!!!! And anyone else who is interested in making more discoveries.

True, but I think the point is that it could work differently. If we had a more thorough understanding of neurology, we could pinpoint the precise electro-chemical reactions that need to take place. Then we could follow these pathways and determine precisely what was preventing them. Then we would search for the type of chemical/drug/gene that would have the desired effect, AND we would have a pretty damned good idea what other side effects that treatment should have (or how to prevent them).

I'm not saying biology is there yet. Just that I hope to see that in my lifetime.

What's YOUR point? Yes, there ARE OS X servers running publicly accessible, vulnerable software. I am not only claiming it but stating I personally know this to be true. And no, I'm sure as hell not going to name names or give you more details than that.

I already said the developers (and companies still using OS X Server) were being stupid. That is irrelevant.

Apple was too slow. Being days late matters. This isn't kindergarten, and nobody is "picking on Apple". We do need to be honest and critical. And anyone with half a brain should interpret this as one more piece of evidence that Apple is lackadaisical about servers.

Thank you for the well-thought reply, and sorry for the slow one on my end. I was afraid I wouldn't get to this before commenting was closed (again).

I am half playing devil's advocate, half serious. I am not entirely opposed to prioritizing protocols (say UDP over TCP), provided it's done fairly and in a reasonable, objective manner.

However, this still seems to shift the responsibility and open numerous vectors for abuse. If my neighbor decides to run a call center from home, and use 50mbps of VoIP, and my cable provider oversubscribes their node, is all of my traffic constantly throttled? If my ISP also offers TV streaming over RTP, but a competitor uses UDP, the ISP now has an excuse to "prioritize" their own service and harm competitors.

On a sidenote, I don't particularly want my ISP or any of their intermediaries deciding my skype call or streaming video is more important than a deliverable I need to upload over SFTP by 10pm. I'm not a network engineer, but it seems like it would be pretty easy for them to give me 5mbps, 15ms latency, etc. to the appropriate peering. If peering/backbones/whatever are that congested that often... maybe we can address that instead?

I think we both agree, at least, that ISPs have conflicts of interest and should not be trusted.

It's actually kind of brilliant. They want their remaining paying customers to be afraid to pirate. To think it's difficult, immoral, and dangerous. To believe they made the right choice. Bonus points: make them feel superior to those who do pirate.

They should probably include a short video of a an unattractive geek working really hard to hack something, followed by an image of a SWAT team kicking down a door and killing his puppy before arresting him.

I don't see how "the ISP should treat every packet the same" is unreasonable. The ISP should guarantee latency, throughput, jitter, availability, etc. per their SLAs. The end user can do their own QOS and decide whether they want netflix or remote robotic surgeries to take priority. If the user needs a stronger guarantee, they should get a better connection with a better SLA. None of this is illegal or unreasonable.

Data should be delivered as determined by the client and the server, not the ISP. I'm not a web developer, but I suspect any real browser will load title, layout, text, then images.

Thanks for proving my point. Local administrators should be allowed to prioritize their own networks. ISPs coming up with simple rules that override admins is much trickier, especially for large media companies with conflicts of interest. I mean, bureaucrats.

A lot of us use OS X for server work. A real terminal (though I really just need ssh and scp), can use nearly every tool I can use on Linux, yet not stuck with the *cough* horrendous Linux desktop experience.

Plus, I get the added bonus of being able to ARD mac systems, test AFP shares from servers that use them, and run Win and Linux VMs. The only way to run all three without wasting a lot of time is on a Mac.