Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:You mean... (Score 1) 208

by Archangel Michael (#47917623) Attached to: AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise

QOS doesn't give any stream preferential treatment. QOS guarantees certain level of bandwidth at all times for certain streams. Typically, it is reserved for things like VOIP where buffering causes issues. I don't think Netflix is deserving of QOS, but rather it deserves better guaranteed base because it can adjust with larger buffers, taking care of intermittent studdering due to temporary spikes in bandwidth usage.

The problem here, is that total aggregate bandwidth is simply being manipulated at peering points due to greedy ISPs like Comcast and AT&T. The congestion at peering points is simply a means to an end, and Comcast (et al) are taking advantage of stupid consumers. I can assure you that both Netflix (and similar) and the ISPs know exactly where the problem lies, AND how to solve it. And seeing what Netfix has offered the ISPs in terms of peering, and the lack of acceptance by the ISPs, the problem lies with ISPs and only ISPs.

Netflix has capacity, the ISPs have Capacity, but they can't agree on peering, which is simply the bridging of the two capacities. And knowing that they both have Routers in the same COLO facility with capacity, but the fiber connection between the two routers is missing, due to ISPs unwillingness to play fairly, is criminal.

From what I've heard, Netflix is willing to buy Comcast the router, fiber and all the bits needed to add additional peering bandwidth, and Comcast has refused, instead is trying to bully Netflix. Netflix needs to put up advertising "don't blame us" with a simplified version of what is happening. 30 Seconds is all it will take.

Comment: Re:So-to-speak legal (Score 1) 398

by Archangel Michael (#47913425) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

"And if we tolerate a ramp being 1 degree off, how far do they push it in the name of saving money? "

Because, it used to be one set of regulations, and then they changed it, and will again. It isn't just the one regulation, it is ALL of them. And if you live in, or visit California you'll see "Proposition 65" plaques just about everywhere, because it is cheaper to put the sign up, than it is to not put the sign up and get caught with "cancer causing" whatevers. It is now meaningless signage that nobody pays any attention to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Comment: Re:So-to-speak legal (Score 0) 398

by Archangel Michael (#47908819) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

Strawman. Pure and simple.

Clean Air becomes "Carbon Tax" (CO2 is clean), and regulations regarding all sorts of things not related to "clean air", and is just a means to totalitarian controls set by people like Al Gore.

Safe Food becomes So many regulations and costs that while food is safe, it is so expensive that most people cannot eat it. Not to mention labeling of food as a "drug" because we need the government telling us Walnuts need a prescription.

Safe Working Conditions becomes OSHA regulations so deep and thick that on any given day your company probably violates a number of "safe working condition" regulations. Not to mention big fines for violations like your 3 foot barrier being only 2'11" tall, or your wheelchair ramp being 1 degree off.

Basically, your entire argument is nothing short of a Strawman, that keeps being perpetrated by those who WANT to remain stupid. And while we're on the subject, you forgot to mention Somalia.

Comment: Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? (Score 1) 149

Yes, because comparing homogenous people group, in a small Scandinavian country to the melting pot country with 39 times greater population always works!

or .. Yes, because it is either total socialism or total Anarachy?

Nice Strawman though. Easy to setup, easy to knock down. I've seen the Somalian Strawman quite a bit, it must be popular with Liberals. Why don't you compare China or Cuba as perfect examples of socialism? Oh right, because they don't fit the narrative you're trying to create.

Comment: Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? (Score 1) 149

The tax-avoidance behaviour of the rich demonstrates very clearly the reason we need government,

So you're saying the PURPOSE of government is to tax people, especially the rich? Obviously you think taxes can be progressive to the point of punishing rich people for being successful. What you and people like yourself have failed to realize is that rich people are simply able to avoid taxes, and will do so whenever and however they can. This is not evil, or bad, or even wrong at any level.

However, the premise that taxes can ever be progressive is simply wrong. My prime example is the "luxury tax" enacted early in the Clinton years, that taxed, quite heavily, things like boats, airplanes and expensive cars and whatnot. The idea was to extract extra revenue from these "rich" people's toys. What ended up happening, in classic case of Tax Avoidance, was that section of the economy practically ceased to exist and large numbers of "average" americans lost their jobs, AND the revenue actually dropped. The rich simply stopped buying their toys.

This ended up hurting ONLY the middle class workers. The rich were still rich. The government didn't get the revenue they wanted, and it was quickly and quietly reversed.

The fact is, you tax the rich enough, they leave, and you don't get the revenue you wanted, and the people working to service the rich lose their jobs. Regressive. Period.

well, the feudal system.

We have that now. And it isn't just the "rich" it is those in power that we serve. And yet, you think bigger more powerful government will lesson our serfdom. I actually think big powerful government IS the problem, because of the very reason you say is the cause of the problem. It isn't the cause, it is a symptom of the problem, and making a bigger, more powerful government isn't the solution.

Money will always buy power, however, the role of governance is not to tax, as you suggested, the rich, it is to fairly govern power so that all are equal before government. This meas we have to stop group politics and go back to protecting the rights of the citizen(s). Abuse of power is always done in the name of the group.

Comment: Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? (Score 0) 149

You miss my point. The more people make, the more they can spend to avoid taxes, which includes moving. You are correct, in that the more people make, they more they can pay in taxes. but that is not how reality actually works. There is a trade off when taxes become so high, in the name of extracting more taxes from those that can pay, that they start spending money on tax avoidance, which leaves the real tax burden on those that are less able to avoid paying taxes.

When Warren Buffet pays less in percentage in taxes than his secretary, this is all the proof you need to realize that taxes, all of them, are regressive. EVEN taxes designed to be progressive.

And you are right about Spending. It should be the GOAL of government to spend less, and we should reward thrift in government. Unfortunately there is no incentive to spend less, only incentive to spend more. And we wonder why government spending is out of control.

Comment: Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? (Score 1) 149

The problem being, that should be the policy for all businesses, not just "substantial" ones. The fact that we are looking at incentives to entice people to come, while taxing people already here beyond their ability to pay, is simply stupid. I see advertisements for New York touting "tax free zones" and whatnot, which to me is simply implied admission that tax rates elsewhere and for existing NY businesses are way too high. But rather than realize what should be obvious, they keep taxing people out of the state, so that they can bring in new businesses.

It is stupid if you ask me.

Comment: Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? (Score 0) 149

I'm simply amazed that someone who has thought out taxes and such as much as yourself, hasn't realized that Taxes are Regressive. ALL taxes are regressive.

I have no problem with people seeking to lower tax burdens any way they can, it is their duty to be as efficient as they can with their own money. This is the biggest reason why I think Government waste and inefficiencies should be eliminated by going private whenever possible.

My suggestion is this, Tax Breaks for any company doing public works to improve things like highway improvements to a business park, and government streamlining the process and providing all the permits and such, and letting people (sic) like Tesla build the infrastructure they need to build their businesses. In this case, the tax breaks would be in the form of income deductions for the capital improvements to the Highways.

IMHO, taxes are equivalent to punishment. The language used by the "tax the rich" crowd clearly indicates that they know it is a form of punishment. It should be the goal of govenment to lower taxes, whenever possible. When we realize that taxes are a necessary evil, we ALL should be working towards lowering them.

But here is the the thing, the rich will always tend towards tax avoidance, and the burden of taxes will always fall upon the vast middle and lower edges of society. Thus, taxes (all of them) are regressive.

Comment: Re:Who would have thought (Score 1) 193

by Archangel Michael (#47884689) Attached to: The Documents From Google's First DMV Test In Nevada

I know the rules for a roundabout. That is not the problem. The problem is that no driver is required to know the rules of the roundabout. It is NOT required. Additionally you have people like my wife who thinks they know the rules, but give wrong instructions ... AND won't believe me when I correct her .. who won't read the rules for herself.

SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out! -- Ken Thompson

Working...