Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 831

by Yakasha (#47561059) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

I've seen Israel do things for the benefit of Palestinian citizens that Hamas refuses to do.

Indeed, like when Israel built Gaza's first and only airport in the late 90's only to have it demolished by Hamas 4 years later. Oh! right it was the other way around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y... But of course that is not a bad thing as the airport now is a valuable resource for hard to get by construction materials for the rebuilding of other structures. /sarcasm

Huh, I don't see Hamas mentioned on that page at all. Will you be fixing that soon so your post can be "accurate"?

Comment: Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (Score 1) 394

I would think the more apt analogy is that you sold me unlimited access to your fridge (bandwidth) but Netflix (content provider) is only restocking at a rate of one six-pack per week. IOW, Netflix is the one failing to have peerage agreements in place to honor their downstream sales commitments.

So if a city promises "With this new tax, you will have perfect roads throughout the city!", and you pay the tax, but the roads aren't there, you blame Ford for not ensuring the roads are available?

That makes sense to you?

Comment: Re:Free market economy (Score 1) 529

If you sincerely believe this

Believe what? That both sides are dysfunctional?

then it's going to be very difficult to change your mind since you will weight the facts supporting your belief heavily while discounting facts contrary to your beliefs.

Welcome to the world of humanity, where everybody does exactly that, including you. Now, of course, we haven't been talking long enough to even bring this up so I'm not sure why you did.

So I'm done. You asked- and I gave you details. Direct quotes from the leader of the house and senate republicans stating they were going to vote no to everything.

You didn't cover the Ds voting No on every R sponsored bill. But, you're done and already assuming that I can't think objectively on this topic. So now we're both done.

Comment: Re:Free market economy (Score 1) 529

Then suddenly the republicans started saying no to everything. They even asked for "X" and when offered "X", they STILL said "no".

See, that is what I'm talking about. Do you have an example of "X"? I'm guessing no. Because nobody would ever come back and offer the same thing that was originally presented. They offer something slightly different. So you're just repeating polarized talking points. As long as the masses are believing Obama's talking points (GOP is bad), the Democrats have no incentive to compromise. They can just point fingers and wait until they have a super majority.

Looking at the voting history of Congress, I see the same basic thing regardless of which bill I look at. If the sponsor has a D on their name, all the "R"s vote no. If the sponsor has an R on their name, all the "D"s vote no. Occasionally about 1/2 of one side votes with the other. Overall, their records appear to be the same.

Comment: Re:Free market economy (Score 1) 529

You skipped a prez, hoss......GWB, the president who ran up that 8 trillion to bail out his Wall Street Buddies.....

Where did Obama's bailout go? I recall getting a check from Bush's IRS. Haven't seen one from Obama's though...

I don't think I'm one of Bush's Wall Street Buddies...

Comment: Re:Free market economy (Score 1) 529

He's made a lot of "small" liberal progress on over a hundred issues but his hands are tied by the party of "no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO NO no no no!"

I still don't get this name calling. Aren't they different parties? Don't they have different views on how to do things? Haven't they always opposed each other?

Aren't the Democrats voting "No" as well on Republican led initiatives?

In short, why is it that side's fault that Congress can't get anything passed? Do you think blaming them makes the process better?

Comment: Re:What of the downstream bandwidth usage? (Score 1) 390

by Yakasha (#47501449) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa

Its quite possible that upgrading the interconnect would all of a sudden cause Verizons network to melt down (i.e. push their overall utilization from a nice manageable number to something unmanageable.)

But if that is true it simply means Verizon is not charging THEIR customers enough to provide THEIR customers with the traffic that THEIR customers have requested.

Yes it is Netflix that is the source of the traffic. But it is Verizon CUSTOMERS that are requesting that traffic based on representations made by Verizon (pay this much and we will allow you to download XXMbits/s.) If Verizon cannot provide that download then they are not doing the job they are being PAID to do.

That would be conjecture. Perfectly reasonable and probable (why else would Verizon anger their own customers by restricting Netflix access?), but still a guess.

However, it was not mentioned in Level 3's post. Good network engineers (good problem solvers in any field) would not simplify the issue so much as to make it incorrect by virtue of being incomplete. I think Level 3 is being horribly disingenuous.

Comment: Re:ugh (Score 1) 390

by Yakasha (#47484989) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa

So when Netflix decided to pay Comcast, they were able to upgrade all of those remote trunks in ~24 hours, even though they cost of fortune?

Are you being cute? Or dense?

Like any responsible business, Comcast (and Verizon) keep a buffer between what they're capable of doing, and what they're required to do (in terms of providing their services), to account for usage spikes and to be able to acquire new customers.

When the buffer reaches self-defined limits, they increase their total bandwidth until the buffer is acceptable.

Comcast would only have had to do the magic you're implying if they were already at capacity. The only thing that did happen is their buffer took a hit. So now they either have to increase bandwidth or stop acquiring customers, before they can continue.

Comment: What of the downstream bandwidth usage? (Score 1) 390

by Yakasha (#47484877) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa
I don't see any mention of that in Level 3's response.
While I'm not doubting the actually connection point could just use a couple network cards to get all that additional traffic onto Verizon's network, what does that do to the rest of Verizon's network?

If allowing all of Level 3's traffic pushes Verizon's bandwidth usage at any point in their system to unacceptable levels, then that part needs to be upgraded as well... which may cost a lot more than a couple network cards.

So, how much traffic is Level 3 pushing? What are the costs to upgrade all of Verizon's weak-points to accommodate the additional traffic? How much do Verizon's customers pay towards that? How much do the peering contracts pay towards that?

Hating Verizon is not enough to answer those questions.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous! (Score 1) 590

by Yakasha (#47478785) Attached to: Marvel's New Thor Will Be a Woman

The reason why it is ridiculous, is because Thor is Odin's son, not Odin's daughter. Its a name, not a title.

Says who? The same people that made Gaea his mother? The same ones that had him meet himself (Hercules)? I can list 100 things that are not Norse/Roman/Greek myth. I can list even more things that were re-written later in comics to no longer follow Norse/Roman/Greek myth. So picking one particular trait, that just happens to be the sex of the character, and clinging to it like the world will end if anybody doesn't use that particular aspect of the Norse myth in their own fantasy writings, doesn't make sense unless it is misogyny... or you can explain your reasoning behind why that particular trait is immutable and all others can be thrown to the wind.

P.S., it sounds from your post that you think the original Thor actually had a sex change. That didn't happen. Some other human girl picked up his hammer and gained the powers.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous! (Score 1) 590

by Yakasha (#47470513) Attached to: Marvel's New Thor Will Be a Woman

This is just lazy pandering. Do they have such little creativity that they best they can do is make a female Thor? This is as pathetic as the Hollywood remake movie spree of the last few decades.

How many stories & myths from our history have male warrior leads?
How many stories & myths from our history have female warrior leads?

Inspiration obviously comes from many places. But if you consider the amount of historical & current inspiration available for male characters of this type, and the clear lack of inspiration for female characters, I'd say the male Thor is a better example of lazy pandering.

This change at least bucks the system a bit.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous! (Score 1) 590

by Yakasha (#47470433) Attached to: Marvel's New Thor Will Be a Woman

I would point out that at no time have I said that Thor cannot or should not be a woman. I pointed out that I do not believe that there was any misogyny as was implied.

I too have not shared my opinion. I merely pointed out that when something looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it appears to be a duck. So when a few quacks in this thread were modded up, I decided to try looking under the feathers.

I did not say that feminine attributes make the new Thor weaker; I was pointing out a weakness in the armor.

You pointed out the change in the armor as a sign of misogyny by "putting a weakness in the new Thor". When in fact, he went from cloth/latex/whatever his body suit was made of, to armor, however shitty nerds consider that armor to be (their logic is sound, I did not dispute it). But then, wearing latex, instead of actual armor, is "putting a weakness in the old Thor"; also to enhance his masculine features. As I've pointed out, all super heroes get that treatment. So to then complain only when it happens at a change from enhancing masculine features, to enhancing feminine features, it looks like the complainer has a problem with women.

I believe that addressing codpieces or physical attributes of other female superheroes either in favor of or against is an attempted trap, and will simply acknowledge other superheroes, which are well known to put their endowedness on display, both male and female alike.

You cited her attire, which by your description serves the same purpose as a feminized cod piece (enhancing and displaying a specific body part), as a negative trait of the new Thor. To both understand why you dislike the feminine display and discount that dislike as simple misogyny, one would also need to understand your viewpoint on similar pieces when used for male characters. That makes it relevant to the discussion, not a trap.

[...] Nobody is complaining about Thor being turned into a title. [...]

Personally, I think that turning Thor into a title is the absurdity here. I felt the same about Captain America. I think Thor would have worked as a female in, for example, the Marvel Ultimate universe. One of my favorite Thor moments was in the Marvel vs. DC crossover when Wonder Woman was able to wield Mjolnir; I was disappointed that the Amalgam comics went in a different direction with her.

Then you should have mentioned it, instead of focusing on irrelevant attributes. Instead, all that was mentioned was things that further the appearance of misogyny: Thor was a man in myth; her armor doesn't help.

Actually, I am trying to engage in thought-out, intelligent dicussion,

Yea, that is why I responded. I assumed because you weren't AC, you were not one of the modders.

but ultimately, I seems you are trying to build a straw man out of my arguments to then refute, which disingenuously undermines what I have said while simultaneously undermines my ability to respect the speaker.

I'm trying to find out why people think Thor being changed to a woman is "Ridiculous". You provided a reason, I offered my counter. Sorry you don't like it. I'll try somewhere else.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous! (Score 1) 590

by Yakasha (#47468919) Attached to: Marvel's New Thor Will Be a Woman

Turning the established white male character Iron Man with his side kick and one of his best friends, a black man

Like Green Lantern? (p.s., Loki often went about as a woman)

The misogyny is actually in the new character of the female Thor, wherein Thor's breastplate now has protrusions for breasts (commonly referred to amongst roleplaying-, comic- and self-proclaimed nerds as "boobplate").

That is misogynist? Are female super heroes supposed to be flat chested? Is there historical context for plate armor built for women? Depicting ideal forms in comics, or any other entertainment, is how it is done. People read comics, or watch movies, or attend plays, to be taken away from reality. Not to be reminded of it.

Btw, how do you feel about codpieces?

It has been argued (link; I know, it's just a blog post and the authority of it is beyond suspect) that a strong enough blow would be plenty to break a sternum. Thor is a warrior that is often engaging in battles of super-human strength, which would qualify as a strong enough blow. They are putting a weakness on the new Thor in order to make her pretty parts more clearly on display. That, I feel, is the true misogyny.

A weakness?! The male Thor wore a (latex?) body suit and a helmet. Since when is cloth or latex better than armor, even poorly designed armor, at stopping a weapon?

The misogyny, as pointed out, lies in the double standards being applied to rate the characters. Changing Green Lantern from one guy to an entire corps, with the "original" (the rewritten story included a Chinese Green Lantern predating the original comic character) being made gay, one of the replacements black... all that is ok. Nobody is complaining about Thor being turned into a title. "Thor" now being whoever holds the hammer is apparently fine with everybody. The complaint is not "Thor's character was changed", it is just "Thor is a woman". So far every reason I've seen presented here for not liking the change has been a double standard.

Also noticed on my side of the computer is that every woman I've told about this has said: "Omg that's awesome!"
The complaints have all come from men, here.

I'd browse around for more... but honestly, I'm not inclined to do so considering the single word "Ridiculous!" is considered +5 Insightful with this crowd, while obviously thought-out, intelligent calls for discussion by opposing views are considered trolling. Too many signs its time to leave slashdot.

HOST SYSTEM RESPONDING, PROBABLY UP...

Working...