Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:In other words. (Score 1) 127

by poetmatt (#48371445) Attached to: FCC Confirms Delay of New Net Neutrality Rules Until 2015

Actually, this is very intentional. This means that there is no way to have net neutrality at all until probably 2018 or later, because we can't even begin lawsuits to confirm how it should work/how it exists until after the FCC even tries.

This confirms that wheeler has been in the pocket of vested interests the entire time.

Comment: Re:nope (Score 1, Troll) 200

by poetmatt (#48320977) Attached to: Net Neutrality Alone Won't Solve ISP Throttling Abuse, Here's Why

The entire post was bad. Voice isn't even latency sensitive and the reason for prioritizing as an ISP is because of how shitty they are doing in managing their bandwidth, aka deliberately creating a lack of. If things aren't being saturated, there shouldn't be a need for prioritization at all.

Is there a need for compression and optimization? Absolutely.

Comment: Re:Not a feminist issue. (Score 1) 571

by poetmatt (#48239539) Attached to: The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll

It's not a troll. You might not agree with everything people say. Your optional response is more speech. That's life, man. Deal with it. That's not a troll, that's explicit fact. My method of conveying it is not polite because I don't see a need to be.

My"sally" was pointing out what you said was wrong. While my definition wasn't perfect either, it was worth pointing out that it was incorrect. Sorry your feelings are so precious that nobody can dare point out that you're wrong. Oh well, we'll have to chalk that up to problems other than free speech....I have no polite or friendly term to call it, but I assure you all of them are negative.

You might want to read popehat's article today, because it sums up a lot of the feminism stuff that you posted wrongly.

Comment: Re:"Social justice warriors" are the ultimate trol (Score 1) 571

by poetmatt (#48239525) Attached to: The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll

That's simple free speech. Feminism has the same common goal it always has, and people having differing opinions is simply what makes that up. You get a spectrum, not a single viewpoint unless it is a single person view. Feminism is not a 1 person movement, ergo. The only response to speech is speech, and criticizing other people's speech tends to open you up to the same.

This is like criticizing that two people who are are both declared $view, whether that is pro feminism or democrat or geek, are wrong because their opinions disagree, simply because they both still support something - such as equality, or freedom, or being anti-gaming corruption.

You couldn't be more wrong in your understanding because you basically created a strawman and pointed to it. I suggest you read as below.

Comment: Re:Not a feminist issue. (Score 1) 571

by poetmatt (#48220473) Attached to: The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll

Among the healthy and mature, there's no right "not to be offended"; not for men, and not for women. There is 100% equality here.

That is not the equality which feminism is about. Being able to be offended is free speech and has nothing to do with feminism at all. In fact, being offended may be completely false or completely legitimate and none of that is relevant to anything

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.