| 00:08.09 | romanovic | I hate that typical conditions (for me, NB into SL county) always seem to be due to driver stupidity rather than number of cars on the freeway. And I feel bad for SB where it is always much worse in the evening. |
| 00:10.40 | romanovic | There are delays, every day. Every day they are due to accidents. Every day the choke points are not where traffic is heaviest and most restricted by the highway, but where people have caused collisions. EVERY DAY |
| 00:11.05 | manithree | is biking home today |
| 00:11.52 | manithree | If I ever get tired of biking the Murdock Canal Trail, I just drive to work, then I'm happy for the boring bike ride. |
| 00:12.00 | manithree | For exactly the reasons you gave |
| 00:15.54 | romanovic | I wish I could bike to work, but it is 25 mi each way. I could take JRP halfway, then I would have to find my way from JRP to AF east of I-15 |
| 00:16.41 | manithree | Mine is 18 miles, but only 2 on the road |
| 00:17.05 | manithree | And most of my traffic problems are because I-15 is only 3 lanes from 92 to Lehi Main |
| 00:17.36 | romanovic | looks at Utah Lake Pkwy Trail, wishes it lead somewhere useful instead of apparently a dead end |
| 00:19.24 | romanovic | manithree: do you continue to bike in the winter, weather permitting? |
| 00:26.53 | manithree | romanovic: Yep. The MCT is plowed better than the street I live on |
| 00:55.30 | levi | Hi from netdevconf |
| 01:05.34 | klys | levi, hi |
| 01:07.44 | *** join/#utah tiwula (~lane@174-23-85-23.slkc.qwest.net) |
| 15:56.27 | *** join/#utah infobot (~infobot@rikers.org) |
| 15:56.27 | *** topic/#utah is Utah related discussion including user groups | logs @ http://ibot.rikers.org/%23utah/ | See also ##lds |
| 15:56.28 | *** mode/#utah [+o infobot] by ChanServ |
| 17:06.08 | *** join/#utah keldwud (ae34be84@gateway/web/freenode/ip.174.52.190.132) |
| 17:09.53 | keldwud | ok am I overthinking this or is there a gotcha here? I manage my DNS records. I currently have an MX record to point my domain to google. I'd like to add a TXT record to point to Microsoft so that Azure can see my domain and then I can add users under that domain. Is this going to cause any conflicts? Or is it easy peasy as just adding the TXT record to my domain? |
| 17:28.58 | manithree | Are you conflating an Active Directory domain with a domain name? |
| 17:29.45 | frostyfrog | keldwud: Should be easy peasy. I have multiple TXT records for my domain, along with my MX record. |
| 17:30.48 | frostyfrog | Example: |
| 17:30.48 | frostyfrog | frostyfrog.net. 300 IN TXT "keybase-site-verification=IxvnOUX2Ld0RcHBd-HVW6m-vV46Sk8ZZQv9UPhF_RC8" |
| 17:30.48 | frostyfrog | frostyfrog.net. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1 *snip* -all" |
| 17:33.34 | keldwud | I'm configuring Azure Active Directory with a custom domain. Route 53 to manage my DNS. I've added the TXT record as MS wanted it @.my.domain so I guess I'll know in 3600ms if it worked or not :) |
| 17:34.06 | frostyfrog | 36 seconds, eh? |
| 17:34.11 | keldwud | whoops |
| 17:34.23 | keldwud | I meant 3600m :) |
| 17:34.42 | frostyfrog | :) |
| 17:35.14 | keldwud | manithree: and no, I don't think I was getting the two confused. I'm trying to add my domain name to my AAD |
| 17:35.23 | *** join/#utah SunSparc (~jonathan@45.56.57.85) |
| 17:36.45 | frostyfrog | 60 hours, quite the time to wait |
| 17:36.50 | manithree | I just have never added users to DNS |
| 17:37.50 | frostyfrog | With AD, you have to have a few DNS text records (IIRC) in order for the clients to find the server. |
| 17:38.53 | keldwud | oh when I said adding users, I meant that I wanted to add users to my AAD and have them attached to my custom domain name |
| 17:39.16 | frostyfrog | Personally, I'd love to get something like AD setup that worked on Mac, Windows, and Linux. Also, getting time limits for users would be a plus as well. I just have no clue how to do something like that on the cheap :( |
| 17:39.18 | keldwud | manithree: I see now where what I said may have implied I was trying to add users to DNS |
| 17:41.30 | frostyfrog | currently creats users manually on each computer and uses http://www.timesupkidz.com/ and Apple's parental controls. But it doesn't work as I want it to. :( |
| 17:42.08 | keldwud | shit might get super complicated here shortly if I decide to federate my jumpcloud directory services with my azure active directory. but if I get it done, I'll have users authenticating across mac, linux, windows, google cloud, azure, and AWS |
| 17:42.34 | frostyfrog | 's jaw drops. |
| 17:42.36 | frostyfrog | Nice! |
| 17:42.39 | keldwud | lol |
| 17:43.12 | keldwud | I mean, that's the goal. since I'm using all three cloud services and I have users across all three OSes |
| 17:43.52 | keldwud | for now I'm just going to manually add users to my AAD (azure active directory) |
| 17:45.43 | keldwud | I don't need any on-premise directory services, so I think that makes it slightly easier |
| 18:30.44 | *** join/#utah moccos (~moccos@228.236.sfcn.org) |
| 18:53.25 | jfindlay | don't underestimate the overcomplication of AWS/Azure |
| 18:54.07 | jfindlay | when AWS got big, I think MS got jealous that another company out-complicated them in a new technology area |
| 19:08.12 | spangborn | My favorite thing about Azure is how randomly deployments fail |
| 19:08.20 | spangborn | For no apparent reason |
| 19:29.32 | frostyfrog | Solar flares |
| 19:29.56 | spangborn | lol seriously |
| 19:30.12 | spangborn | You could deploy the same code 10 times and 3 of them would fail for no reason |
| 19:41.39 | klys | ~slashdot |
| 19:43.43 | klys | mm. hope I don't have to rent new friends in my lifetime. |
| 19:51.32 | frostyfrog | Hmm... NetNeutrality. |
| 19:51.48 | frostyfrog | Looks like all of the UT senators are against it. :( |
| 19:51.56 | frostyfrog | (pretty much) |
| 19:53.12 | spangborn | Not terribly surprising |
| 19:54.31 | frostyfrog | Agreed, however... It is quite a bit sad :( |
| 19:59.24 | spangborn | We don't give them enough money to get what we want |
| 20:18.27 | manithree | So, anybody who disagrees with your position must, by definition, be a sell-out? |
| 20:24.49 | keldwud | yes |
| 20:24.56 | keldwud | manithree == sellout |
| 20:25.02 | keldwud | because we disagree |
| 20:25.10 | keldwud | :) |
| 20:25.33 | jima | that seems like a curious take on that. maybe a better one would be "anybody who curiously disagrees with the will of the majority of their constituents but agrees with donating business interests is a sell-out." |
| 20:25.49 | keldwud | jima++ |
| 20:25.56 | keldwud | great distinction |
| 20:27.37 | keldwud | .define sellout |
| 20:27.46 | keldwud | a sale of a business or company. a betrayal of one's principles for reasons of expedience |
| 20:29.08 | keldwud | I agree that calling somebody a sellout isn't an issue with agreement vs disagreement in this context |
| 20:29.29 | keldwud | especially considering the definition of the word directly applies to the situation |
| 20:30.21 | manithree | has never seen (doesn't mean it doesn't exist) good evidence that the majority of Utahns support net neutrality regulation/legislation |
| 20:31.58 | manithree | Then, anyone who disagrees with your position couldn't possibly have a reasoned, principled position, it must be nefarious and greedy |
| 20:35.23 | jima | suggestive, but not specific: https://medium.com/mozilla-internet-citizen/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality-98b6b77f6cfe |
| 20:37.22 | jima | also suggestive: http://time.com/3741085/net-neutrality-republicans-president/ |
| 20:38.05 | romanovic | I don't know about Utah's population specifically, but net neutrality has majority support among constituents across party lines, and polls have repeatedly demonstrated this |
| 20:38.41 | jima | both links i pasted offered support for that notion, yep. |
| 20:39.36 | jima | unless utahns exist solely in the "against net neutrality" percentages, i don't see how one would reasonably conclude that the majority of utahns aren't for it. |
| 20:41.01 | manithree | Everybody supports net neutrality. That's a great thing. That's why polls by partisans don't really say much about who supports net neutrality regulation/legislation. |
| 20:41.42 | jima | elected officials have an odd tendency to not support net neutrality, though...which was, i believe, the point. |
| 20:42.35 | manithree | Who knows how they feel about net neutrality. It's the net neutrality regulations they're opposed to. |
| 20:43.01 | jima | why? because the industry will regulate itself sufficiently? |
| 20:43.55 | manithree | The point is, conflating the technical concept of net neutrality with the legal concept of net neutrality regulation is a trick by the regulation proponents to fool people |
| 20:44.06 | manithree | And it usually works |
| 20:44.37 | unum | doesn't matter what the polls say about net neutrality, nobodies can to say I really like mike lee, but he voted to over turn net neutraliy so I'm going to vote for Jenny Wilson |
| 20:44.50 | manithree | Therefore, everybody who disagrees with federal regulation of the Internet is a sellout |
| 20:46.06 | unum | I don't see the point of debating net neutrality as a concept |
| 20:46.16 | unum | no point debating it or asking the opinion of most people |
| 20:46.31 | unum | but as policy it does matter, because supposedly we have say in those |
| 20:47.19 | manithree | Which is exactly why people who are fervently in favor of regulation intentionally confuse the language |
| 20:48.08 | manithree | It makes the polls look really good |
| 20:55.37 | unum | why would any one ask me my opinion on the concept? |
| 20:55.46 | manithree | Nevermind |
| 20:55.47 | unum | seems pointless |
| 20:56.22 | unum | most importantly no one is going to switch their voter from Lee to Wilson over this issue |
| 21:11.51 | keldwud | there's also the issue of uninformed vs informed positions |
| 21:12.57 | keldwud | just because my daughter thinks that it's not fair that I don't let her eat candy all the time doesn't mean that I'm doing something wrong |
| 21:14.29 | keldwud | same with adults, just because people who know nothing about technology think that it's a great idea for companies to have to pay money to deliver them a product on infrastructure that is also paid for by the consumer doesn't mean that it is a reasoned principled position |
| 21:14.40 | keldwud | i.e. not all opinions are created equal |
| 21:14.47 | keldwud | not all stances are reasoned and principled |
| 21:16.01 | keldwud | so yeah, in some fields, if somebody holds a dissenting opinion, sometimes that does mean that they aren't reasoned or principled when it comes to that specific domain |
| 21:18.37 | keldwud | and are you being contrary just to be contrary manithree? or do you really think that when it comes to people disagreeing that both sides should be treated as if they are both making rational arguments? because in many cases that's not true. usually it's an issue of logic vs emotion. How people feel versus what creates benefit for the most people. |
| 21:18.56 | manithree | Wow |
| 21:19.28 | frostyfrog | Yes, but someone who makes bread isn't required to charge the farmer for the wheat that he harvested because the baker is providing the bread to the customer... |
| 21:20.58 | frostyfrog | Gamestop doesn't charge Nintendo to allow Nintendo to sell their system/games to customers. |
| 21:21.16 | frostyfrog | Comcast was doing just that sort of thing with Netflix. |
| 21:21.26 | keldwud | i'd be hard pressed to feel comfortable with somebody who has little to no experience with driving and little to no experience with how cars work and operate, I'd be unwilling to allow that person to have a say in how the laws governing automobiles are created and applied |
| 21:23.26 | manithree | keldwud: sounds like your monopoly on logic gives you a perfect excuse to feel superior to anybody who disagrees with you, also |
| 21:25.23 | manithree | Usually, when I argue with my Republican friends over their questionable debating tactics, they're pretty open. You guys just double and triple down. |
| 21:27.01 | keldwud | I feel like maybe there's something going on here that I wasn't originally a part of and that you're working out some issues using me as one of the roles in whatever it is you're working through |
| 21:27.17 | jima | keldwud: ...which is why we don't allow a large pool of medically ignorant men to legislate women's health issues. |
| 21:27.21 | jima | oh wait |
| 21:27.27 | keldwud | jima: lol right? |
| 21:27.45 | manithree | keldwud: project much? |
| 21:28.04 | frostyfrog | o.o |
| 21:28.12 | keldwud | yeah, I'm kinda lost here |
| 21:28.48 | frostyfrog | ditto |
| 21:28.59 | keldwud | not completely lost, though. I've seen this behavior before |
| 21:29.30 | manithree | Pointing out to my Republican friends that calling the other side stupid is probably not raising the level of discourse, they usually, say, yeah, you're right. |
| 21:29.31 | keldwud | and I sometimes attract it with my stances and for some reason I make a great antagonist in people's personal narratives due to key phrases that I've said that might trigger those responses |
| 21:29.38 | manithree | You guys just say, "but they really are stupid" |
| 21:29.54 | keldwud | there is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance |
| 21:29.58 | keldwud | that's how we learn and grow |
| 21:30.09 | keldwud | but if we pretend ignorance doesn't exist, then we can't grow |
| 21:30.22 | keldwud | and not everybody should have an opinion on something. |
| 21:30.26 | manithree | keldwud: which is totally irrelevant to this conversation |
| 21:32.10 | keldwud | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_4TZ6QFrQ0 |
| 21:32.19 | jima | manithree: which "you guys" are you claiming say that, exactly? |
| 21:32.25 | keldwud | ^ manithree in that video |
| 21:32.26 | keldwud | ;) |
| 21:33.00 | keldwud | ok sorry, I shouldn't resort to teasing. I couldn't help it because of your use of the word irrelevant. it reminded me of ricegum so much! |
| 21:33.44 | manithree | I have no problem with anyone admitting their own ignorance. Insisting on other's ignorance simply because they don't agree is entirely different. |
| 21:34.12 | keldwud | oh ok I think I get what you're getting at now |
| 21:34.24 | keldwud | let me see if I understand you correctly, I might be misinterpreting |
| 21:35.19 | keldwud | is it possible to insist on somebody's ignorance whether they agree or not? |
| 21:35.29 | keldwud | agree with a position |
| 21:36.03 | keldwud | I think what you're trying to say is that if somebody disagrees, we shouldn't call out their ignorance |
| 21:36.07 | manithree | Sure, it's possible. Not productive, and almost always incorrect, but obviously possible. |
| 21:36.09 | keldwud | is that right? |
| 21:36.58 | manithree | No, I'm saying your firm conviction that the only possible explanation for disagreement with your dearly held convictions MUST be ignorance is amusing. |
| 21:37.00 | jima | "almost always incorrect" sounds like the mantra of someone who gets called ignorant a lot. ;-) |
| 21:37.24 | manithree | Wow, again |
| 21:37.25 | frostyfrog | lol |
| 21:37.47 | keldwud | I'm getting lost at "only possible explanation" and "dearly held convictions" |
| 21:38.02 | keldwud | just to humor me, what *are* my dearly held convictions? I left my script in the car |
| 21:38.06 | manithree | You are basically saying that anybody who disagrees with you is ignorant |
| 21:38.36 | manithree | spangborn implied that anybody who disagreed with him is a sellout |
| 21:38.41 | jima | can someone quote where anyone maintained that the only possible explanation for disagreement was ignorance? i think i missed it. |
| 21:39.03 | keldwud | oh crap, no he's right |
| 21:39.19 | keldwud | I read back what I wrote and I did specifically say "yes, people who disagree are sellouts" |
| 21:39.49 | keldwud | and then I called manithree a sellout because we disagreed |
| 21:39.55 | frostyfrog | [13:24:56] [User: keldwud] manithree == sellout [13:25:02] [User: keldwud] because we disagree |
| 21:40.00 | jima | manithree: it looks to me like you're the one who expanded "UT senators" to "anyone" |
| 21:40.02 | keldwud | my intention behind those statements was sarcasm |
| 21:40.08 | keldwud | but I completely forgot that I had said it |
| 21:40.09 | frostyfrog | I took that in a joking tone. |
| 21:40.24 | keldwud | yeah, I was absolutely joking but I can see now why the conversation went the way it did |
| 21:40.28 | keldwud | I was so lost at first! |
| 21:40.59 | keldwud | manithree: I don't honestly believe that anybody who disagrees with me is a sellout. |
| 21:41.03 | jima | regarding UT senators, i think there's a notable track record of them accepting contributions from business interests with whom they share potentially unpopular opinions. |
| 21:41.08 | keldwud | that is not a stance I truthfully stand behind |
| 21:41.15 | manithree | They just need to admit their ignorance until they agree with you, right? |
| 21:41.17 | keldwud | I know I said it earlier but I didn't mean it |
| 21:41.48 | jima | well, maybe that's UT legislators in general and not specifically senators |
| 21:41.57 | keldwud | and I'm sorry for calling you a sellout, manithree. I also didn't mean that. |
| 21:42.15 | keldwud | can you forgive me? |
| 21:42.24 | manithree | I realized you were joking when you called me a sellout |
| 21:42.33 | keldwud | it was a bad joke on my part. and un-called for. |
| 21:42.34 | jima | we have to apologize for/retract jokes now? shiiiit. i owe youtah a long talk... |
| 21:42.39 | keldwud | lol |
| 21:42.55 | frostyfrog | lol |
| 21:43.01 | jima | keldwud: sellout. #notsorry |
| 21:43.24 | keldwud | and I did specifically state earlier that it wasn't an issue of agreeing vs disagreeing points of view |
| 21:43.44 | keldwud | not all issues should be solved by whether or not people agree or disagree |
| 21:43.45 | manithree | Shocking as this may seem, I am opposed to FCC regulation of the Internet, and I have taken 0 contributions from Comcast |
| 21:44.48 | keldwud | who is harmed by the regulations? |
| 21:44.58 | keldwud | srs question |
| 21:44.58 | manithree | Generally consumers |
| 21:45.01 | keldwud | not being a pedant |
| 21:45.06 | frostyfrog | I'm mostly against Comcast & co doing dumb stuff to get more money from me and my parents. |
| 21:45.14 | keldwud | what do they do to harm a consumer? |
| 21:45.24 | keldwud | I'm not familiar with the regulations, that's why I'm asking |
| 21:45.45 | keldwud | like, does it prevent the consumer from receiving or being able to access a product or good? |
| 21:46.09 | manithree | In my experience, it leads to rent-seeking, less competition, and higher prices |
| 21:46.10 | jima | manithree: comcast gave $51,700 to utah US representatives for the 2016 cycle...i'd sooner call the recipients sellouts than you. |
| 21:46.11 | keldwud | or does the regulation in some way cause physical or financial harm to the consumer? |
| 21:46.34 | keldwud | and what happens if the regulations are removed? what benefits are there to the consumer? |
| 21:46.44 | keldwud | are there any disadvantages to removing the regulations? |
| 21:47.17 | jima | my opinion is that the potential for harm to consumers caused by no regulations is greater than the potential by maintained/increased regulations. |
| 21:47.38 | manithree | My point isn't specifically about net neutrality regulation, just the fact that I really am philosophically opposed to it (after years of doing business with baby bells), and not because I'm ignorant or emotional |
| 21:47.58 | manithree | or a sellout |
| 21:48.05 | keldwud | ok I get what you're saying manithree |
| 21:48.06 | jima | it seems like you're arguing with people who aren't in this conversation with some of your points. |
| 21:48.12 | manithree | which is apparently really difficult for some people to believe |
| 21:48.30 | keldwud | so I was making some generalizations and in the specific case of legistlators, they *are* sellouts. that doesn' mean *you* are a sell out |
| 21:48.40 | keldwud | you came to your stance through a completely different means |
| 21:49.13 | jima | keldwud: that's how i took the "sellout" accusations |
| 21:49.30 | manithree | So, you are privy to Mike Lee's private thoughts and decision making process? |
| 21:49.47 | keldwud | now it *is* possible for people to arrive to incorrect conclusions even based on having the correct information |
| 21:49.49 | jima | manithree: is he taking the will of his constituency into account with his actions? |
| 21:50.09 | jima | or addressing why the will of his constituency is misplaced? |
| 21:50.14 | manithree | IRC, during his campaign, he did discuss some very valid criticisms of the then-current FCC regulations |
| 21:50.26 | keldwud | manithree: there are some things that we can deduce and even if his intention isn't to be a sell out, his actions reflect that of a sell out regardless of what he is thinking |
| 21:50.29 | keldwud | so it's a moot point |
| 21:50.59 | keldwud | the fact that there is money involved changes the whole dynamic |
| 21:51.34 | jima | https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=872D6AD7-5EDE-49E0-990A-4E7D7C7DD0F3 |
| 21:52.02 | jima | referring to net neutrality as "Obamacare for the Internet" seems like a buzzword-y way to ignite their base against it. |
| 21:52.34 | jima | "put federal bureaucrats in charge of engineering the Internetâs infrastructure" "stifle innovation" |
| 21:53.15 | manithree | jima: which is exactly what FCC regulation did to the phone industry for decades (the phone infrascture, not Internet) |
| 21:53.39 | jima | i can't deny some of the phone regulation was a mixed bag |
| 21:53.55 | manithree | In 1988, my hometown still didn't have DTMF |
| 21:54.10 | jima | what was the population? |
| 21:54.31 | manithree | 3-7k, depending on how many outlying areas you counted |
| 21:56.44 | jima | so...isn't that use case what the USF was meant to address? |
| 21:57.04 | jima | but regulation is bad, so you...didn't want dtmf in rural-ish areas? |
| 21:57.49 | manithree | I wanted it. That was my example of a regulated monopoly providing horrible service at a ridiculously high price. |
| 21:59.04 | jima | which is it? companies won't do the right thing unless they're forced, or regulations are bad? |
| 21:59.31 | manithree | regulations didn't help consumers |
| 21:59.47 | keldwud | why do we call people consumers, btw? |
| 21:59.53 | jima | didn't the USF help deploy modernized telephony infrastructure to rural areas? |
| 21:59.55 | keldwud | why don't we refer to consumers as people? |
| 22:00.08 | jima | keldwud: to distinguish them from companies, i assume. |
| 22:00.14 | jima | since companies are people too, duh. |
| 22:00.15 | keldwud | I think referring to people as consumers shifts the focus to thinking that a person's role is to consume or purchase |
| 22:00.28 | keldwud | well there shouldn't be any question, companies aren't people |
| 22:00.39 | keldwud | they are not biological entities |
| 22:00.47 | jima | keldwud: a lot of people (which may or may not be companies) would disagree with you. |
| 22:00.56 | keldwud | they don't breathe air, they don't depend upon fresh clean water, they don't require food, they don't procreate |
| 22:00.58 | Migs | https://traveloregon.com/thegame/ |
| 22:00.59 | keldwud | they aren't "alive" |
| 22:01.11 | jima | keldwud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood fwiw |
| 22:01.13 | keldwud | therefore they should have no say in what happens to biological entities |
| 22:01.17 | manithree | jima: Probably, but are you really arguing that innovation, and customer service were better when the government-enforced monopolies and FCC were in charge? |
| 22:01.38 | frostyfrog | Until companies are run by robots, I'll be disagreeing. |
| 22:01.46 | keldwud | jima: I know, I just refuse to agree to it |
| 22:01.51 | keldwud | re: corporate personhood |
| 22:02.26 | keldwud | I'm arguing that there shouldn't be such a thing and that it's absolutely dangerous to life to give non-biological entities the ability to control our destinies |
| 22:02.49 | manithree | Because I think competition has vastly improved the telephone market more than the FCC |
| 22:03.20 | jima | manithree: i think it was the DoJ that allowed the monopoly to occur, not the FCC |
| 22:03.35 | jima | or at least, the DoJ is the one that initiated the breakup...right? |
| 22:04.11 | manithree | Yeah, but the FCC was pretty much in charge of regulating the bells |
| 22:04.13 | jima | at the prompting of the FCC, looks like |
| 22:04.22 | jima | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT%26T_Co. fwiw |
| 22:04.48 | manithree | competition isn't perfect, and neither is regulation |
| 22:04.58 | manithree | but IMO, competition has a much better track record |
| 22:05.05 | keldwud | I love me some regulations |
| 22:05.14 | keldwud | I give my kid regulations all the time |
| 22:05.14 | jima | which is great if there IS competition. |
| 22:05.15 | manithree | keldwud: Really? I'm shocked |
| 22:05.28 | keldwud | manithree: wait are you being sarcastic or serious? |
| 22:05.29 | keldwud | lol |
| 22:05.30 | jima | if there isn't (or effectively isn't)... |
| 22:05.47 | manithree | sarcastic |
| 22:06.11 | keldwud | my daughter absolutely hates that I give her regulations on her time and her diet, but I also don't think that somebody with a brain that isn't fully developed is capable of making the best choices for themselves. |
| 22:06.28 | keldwud | manithree: the reason I wasn't sure is because if you had ever met me in person, it actually would be surprising |
| 22:06.39 | manithree | I'm speaking of gov, esp. federal regulations |
| 22:06.51 | keldwud | yeah, I'm all for regulations |
| 22:06.59 | keldwud | fire codes are one set of regulations I love |
| 22:07.03 | keldwud | I also love building codes |
| 22:07.12 | keldwud | I love how our water supply is regulated |
| 22:07.17 | keldwud | I love how our roads are regulated |
| 22:07.23 | keldwud | I love almost all of it! |
| 22:07.49 | jima | i have mixed feeling about regulations in general, but given how the internet is how so many people make their livings, the potential for companies to use their monopoly or near-monopoly status to squeeze and or crush potential competitors...i believe in regulation there. |
| 22:07.49 | keldwud | regulations are a great artificial way of curtailing the negative effects of the prisoner's dilemma |
| 22:08.09 | keldwud | yeah, I'm all for regulating things that can kill you or things that you can't survive without |
| 22:08.17 | frostyfrog | I'm a big fan of title 47 parts 15, 90, and 97 :p |
| 22:08.33 | keldwud | I don't think people can live in the modern world without broadband |
| 22:08.52 | keldwud | so I think that it falls into the "yes please, regulate" category |
| 22:08.54 | jima | they absolutely can, but it's getting increasingly difficult to do so. |
| 22:09.06 | manithree | keldwud: for you, that clearly is the answer |
| 22:09.17 | frostyfrog | I don't like how they wanted to redefine it again >_> |
| 22:09.17 | keldwud | tis why I added the qualifier "modern" |
| 22:10.04 | jima | people whine about net neutrality stifling innovation, but the LACK of net neutrality can stifle innovation by new players. |
| 22:10.22 | manithree | But, you can't have it both ways, either: If most legislators are sold out to ISPs, why do you trust them to regulate the ISPs? |
| 22:10.24 | joshh | what possible downside or stifling can come from net neutrality? |
| 22:10.41 | keldwud | manithree: legislators don't regulate |
| 22:10.44 | jima | personally i'm disinclined for comcast to innovate new and creative ways to screw me over. |
| 22:10.46 | frostyfrog | Imagine if Ubiquity wasn't able to succeed because Cisco pushed them out ;-; |
| 22:10.56 | jima | frostyfrog: ubiquiti but yes |
| 22:10.56 | joshh | i can't think of why anyone would be against it except politicians that want to help large ISPs double bill customers and content providers |
| 22:11.07 | manithree | No, but they appoint the people who regulate, and the regulators (it has been widely reported) are sellouts, also |
| 22:11.09 | frostyfrog | jima: thanks :) |
| 22:11.20 | keldwud | also, you make a good point. with regulatory capture being a thing, you're right, we can't trust those bodies to keep us safe |
| 22:11.38 | jima | (as i say behind 2x UAP-AC-PRO, 1x ERPRO-8, & 1x ESW-48-LITE) |
| 22:11.40 | joshh | most voters who are "against net neutrality" don't have a clue at all and just assume it means the democrats trying to do a government takeover of the internet |
| 22:12.06 | keldwud | s/democrats/people who aren't like me |
| 22:12.12 | frostyfrog | xD |
| 22:12.16 | frostyfrog | lol |
| 22:12.18 | joshh | lol sure |
| 22:12.36 | keldwud | s/people who aren't like me/poor|not-white|not-christian|not-republican|etc |
| 22:12.41 | joshh | although im not sure if the number of anti-neutrality democrats/liberals is significant |
| 22:12.49 | joshh | though they might be in favor of it for similar ignorant reasons |
| 22:12.54 | joshh | like thinking it will help ban foxnews.com |
| 22:12.55 | jima | joshh: with https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=872D6AD7-5EDE-49E0-990A-4E7D7C7DD0F3 i can understand the confusion |
| 22:13.20 | joshh | ugh i loathe mike lee |
| 22:13.30 | jima | joshh: i cited some polls earlier, it's somewhere between 10% and 20% iirc |
| 22:13.57 | jima | little bit less than republicans, but not substantially |
| 22:14.23 | manithree | And here we are again. My position can not possible be based on my experience, reading, intelligence, etc. I'm a racist bigot |
| 22:14.31 | joshh | but basically ya im convinced that the average non-technical voter is kinda helpless with understanding it |
| 22:14.47 | jima | manithree: so you've lumped yourself in with "most voters"? |
| 22:14.49 | joshh | and whatever political stuff they hear about it won't help at all |
| 22:14.54 | jima | manithree: you volunteered that. |
| 22:15.21 | manithree | I think joshh just proved that's the only reason to oppose net neutrality regulations |
| 22:15.23 | jima | "oh, woe is me, i'm being oppressed!" he cries, as he oppresses himself. |
| 22:15.27 | keldwud | manithree: doesn't mean you're a bigot. like I said earlier, it is very possible to come to incorrect conclusions even with provided with all the correct information |
| 22:15.28 | joshh | manithree: i would not say that, but i do wonder what good could come out of allowing powerful/monopolistic ISPs to not treat packets equallty |
| 22:15.36 | keldwud | happens all the time in all sorts of professional fields |
| 22:15.41 | joshh | wonder what good you think there would be, i mean |
| 22:15.43 | keldwud | that's why there's such a thing as consensus |
| 22:15.51 | jima | manithree: 'most voters who are "against net neutrality" don't have a clue at all' |
| 22:15.56 | joshh | and just "i don't like it because it's a regulation" doesn't seem compelling |
| 22:16.16 | keldwud | at some point you have to decide if going against the grain is because you know something that the consensus doesn't know or if it's because of an incorrect conclusion |
| 22:16.27 | keldwud | and incorrect conclusions don't imply an error in thinking at all |
| 22:16.45 | keldwud | we are pattern recognition machines and sometimes we don't all see the same pattern even when presented with the same image |
| 22:16.49 | jima | manithree: if you're self-selecting being painted by that brush, by all means. |
| 22:16.49 | frostyfrog | "to not treat packets equallty" I wonder if I could call them out on some inequallity thing that is considered immoral for something like this :p |
| 22:16.54 | keldwud | but we *do* have a shared consensual reality |
| 22:17.26 | keldwud | frostyfrog: I like where you're going with that |
| 22:17.41 | jima | manithree: i, at least, didn't see that statement applying to you, although i feel like you're being weirdly vague about what you think regulations for net neutrality are going to do. |
| 22:17.50 | joshh | the reasons isps don't like net neutrality are because they want to charge netflix instead of peering, or slow down video on mobile (unless you pay extra), etc. what possible benefit to anyone besides them is there? especially when we do not have real isp competition in most areas? |
| 22:18.01 | manithree | keldwud: I don't think just because people don't have the same views means one is right and one is wrong |
| 22:18.27 | joshh | manithree: just state the reasons why are you opposed to net neutrality |
| 22:18.34 | keldwud | manithree: can we use flat-earthers versus the rest as an illustration? |
| 22:18.44 | keldwud | there are absolutely some places where it's not about opinions or perception |
| 22:18.44 | joshh | why you think the internet and people whop use it are better off without it |
| 22:18.47 | jima | manithree: a great way to address people feeling like your position lacks lerit is explaining why you position has merit. |
| 22:18.52 | keldwud | some things are just real and some things aren't |
| 22:18.54 | jima | lacks merit* |
| 22:19.06 | jima | your* |
| 22:19.07 | manithree | First, I don't really see any need for it, |
| 22:19.11 | jima | ffs, i should give up |
| 22:19.26 | jima | manithree: then stop bitching about people making assumptions about your motivations. |
| 22:19.30 | keldwud | jima: apathy gets us all in the end! happens to me every day. |
| 22:19.42 | jima | put up or shut up. |
| 22:19.51 | manithree | second, the effect in other markets (taxis, cosmetology, car dealerships) |
| 22:20.01 | jima | we're not talking about other markets. |
| 22:20.07 | joshh | what kind of effet? |
| 22:20.09 | jima | we're talking about the internet. stop trying to deflect. |
| 22:20.10 | joshh | err effect |
| 22:20.14 | joshh | there's 2 of us who can't type today |
| 22:20.34 | jima | the internet isn't the same thing as the pstn of ~20+ years ago, either. |
| 22:20.48 | manithree | I'm not defelecting. Regulations start with the best of intentions, and end up being terrible for consumers in all the markets I've listed. |
| 22:20.59 | keldwud | ok, starting a radio station based on all-star got me a lot of really crappy songs. like all-american rejects, matchbox twenty, nickelback, sum 41 |
| 22:21.01 | keldwud | yuck |
| 22:21.10 | joshh | what did the existing fcc neutrality rules harm? besides comcast and verizon's nefarious plans? |
| 22:21.18 | jima | please elaborate on how net neutrality regulations might end up terrible for consumers? |
| 22:21.20 | frostyfrog | lol |
| 22:21.32 | keldwud | jima: he stated that it would make the consumer pay more |
| 22:21.44 | keldwud | but I'm not sure how or why regulations would cause a price hike |
| 22:21.55 | jima | the lack of regulation makes consumers pay more too. next straw man? |
| 22:22.00 | keldwud | so it would harm people financially if there were regulations on the internet |
| 22:22.15 | keldwud | lol jima |
| 22:22.17 | keldwud | jima++ |
| 22:22.31 | manithree | Once cosmetology became regulated, the barriers to entry rose dramatically. I want more competition in the ISP market, not less. |
| 22:22.39 | manithree | Same with taxis |
| 22:22.46 | frostyfrog | If there were regulations that make consumers pay more, why is Comcast against it a smaller providers like Xmission for it? *shrugs* |
| 22:22.49 | jima | you keep talking about other industries. |
| 22:22.51 | joshh | IMO, net neutrality is necessary in order to make sure the internet works how it does and can't be totally screwed by companies with too much power on it |
| 22:22.52 | keldwud | there absolutely should be barriers to driving people in a car! |
| 22:22.58 | joshh | it has nothing to do with ISPs competing |
| 22:23.02 | keldwud | anything that can potentially kill you should be regulated |
| 22:23.15 | manithree | keldwud: you trust the government way more than I do |
| 22:23.16 | joshh | for which the only real solution is muni open access fiber |
| 22:23.20 | keldwud | anything that can damage your health should be regulated |
| 22:23.23 | manithree | joshh: I'm not opposed to that |
| 22:23.23 | joshh | but that's a separate issue |
| 22:23.31 | jima | i trust corporations marginally less than i trust the government. |
| 22:23.38 | frostyfrog | ^ |
| 22:23.44 | keldwud | manithree: do I understand that you trust companies more than a government? |
| 22:23.59 | keldwud | i.e. corporations have our interests at heart more than the government does? |
| 22:24.08 | jima | there's at least the pretense of recourse if the government makes absolutely moronic, public-harming decisions. |
| 22:24.27 | frostyfrog | Though I trust small companies with talent more than the government. Large companies, significantly less so. |
| 22:24.29 | joshh | manithree: do you think your isp, (assuming here you can only get one) should be free to treat your different protocol packets differently and charge you separate for email, web, torrents, etc? not because they need to but simply because they can? |
| 22:24.33 | manithree | No, but companies have more competition: Comcast allegedly throttled bittorrent, and public outcry made them stop (or at least admit it, I don't remember) |
| 22:24.38 | jima | i'm not deluded enough to think there's actual, reliable recourse. |
| 22:24.55 | jima | ISPs don't have that much competition. |
| 22:25.05 | joshh | it was actually the threat of net neutrality regulations that made comcast back off |
| 22:25.09 | joshh | iirc |
| 22:25.16 | jima | monopoly/duopoly status is a real thing in most places. |
| 22:25.17 | manithree | So, it worked |
| 22:25.27 | joshh | neutrality worked |
| 22:25.33 | manithree | without regulation |
| 22:25.41 | jima | sure, until the government paints themselves into a corner so that there's effectively no threat of regulation. |
| 22:25.43 | joshh | the regulation came later, to prevent them from doing the same thing again later |
| 22:25.54 | joshh | and that was only one example |
| 22:26.12 | joshh | the mobile companies are already doing all kinds of things with mobile data that don't benefit users |
| 22:26.21 | joshh | and it will get worse |
| 22:26.34 | jima | manithree: you're acknowledging that a corporation only did the right thing because they were threatened with regulation? |
| 22:26.36 | keldwud | if I don't like something that a company is doing and they are harming me either physically or financially, what do I do if they are providing me with a service or good that I can't maintain my standard of living without? |
| 22:26.38 | joshh | which might be fine if you don't care a lot about the internet staying awesome |
| 22:26.50 | jima | keldwud: that was my earlier point, yep. |
| 22:26.58 | manithree | So did the heavily regulated baby bells of yesteryear |
| 22:27.12 | keldwud | jima: yeah, just trying to help frame it more :) |
| 22:27.12 | manithree | I think it was the public outcry that made them change |
| 22:27.21 | joshh | public outcry can work sometimes |
| 22:27.27 | joshh | but there usually has to be some actual leverage |
| 22:27.28 | keldwud | so a company responds to public outcry? why? |
| 22:27.34 | keldwud | why do they care about what the public thinks about them |
| 22:27.35 | joshh | especially when a company is a monopoly |
| 22:27.43 | jima | manithree: under the government's watchful eye, the bell t-1000 is coming back together. :-P |
| 22:27.45 | joshh | and especially when the public doesn't really even know the details of the issue |
| 22:27.51 | keldwud | they don't loose money if the public outcries |
| 22:27.59 | joshh | torrenters were mad at comcast enough and somehow it got mainstream traction |
| 22:28.07 | joshh | but that can't be relied on |
| 22:28.24 | keldwud | companies only respond to the leverage of money. no other resource except in a smaller part materials and/or labor capital affect a corporation |
| 22:28.26 | manithree | joshh: neither can the fcc |
| 22:28.33 | joshh | but look at e.g the netflix/comcast/level3 dispute a while ago |
| 22:28.52 | manithree | keldwud: their customers are important to them for the money |
| 22:28.53 | joshh | i don't necessarily agree that hte FCC is the best agency to regulate anything with the internet |
| 22:28.58 | joshh | and would like to see something better |
| 22:29.07 | joshh | but i don't know what's in the cards there |
| 22:29.15 | keldwud | manithree: who is comcast's customer? the person consuming their product or the stock holders? |
| 22:29.17 | joshh | at this point the fcc seems pretty political and lacking in credibility though |
| 22:29.22 | joshh | for anything internet related |
| 22:29.23 | manithree | keldwud: both |
| 22:29.47 | keldwud | ok and what if I was a company and I could harm five customers but make more money than if I hadn't harmed them? |
| 22:29.49 | jima | joshh: i don't disagree with that, either. |
| 22:29.56 | keldwud | what would I do? would I respond to their outcry? |
| 22:29.59 | manithree | I'm not saying competition is a perfect solution. I know it's not |
| 22:30.01 | keldwud | I lost five customers but I'm making more money |
| 22:30.14 | joshh | manithree: if you're a content provider that pays transit bills, and your users pay their isp and request your traffic, should their isp have the right to force you to pay them for access to their customers? or should the isp just deliver your packets? |
| 22:30.16 | keldwud | what's going to stop me from making that choice? |
| 22:30.48 | keldwud | it would be a net negative for me to continue serving those customers at no harm versus harming them and making more money |
| 22:30.52 | manithree | joshh: I think that's up to the content providers and backbone providers to work out. |
| 22:30.54 | jima | joshh: imo, they're paying their transit provider, and i'm paying mine, so no. |
| 22:31.24 | joshh | jima: exactly my opinion |
| 22:31.32 | jima | if the isp happens to be a tier 1, that's their damn problem. |
| 22:31.46 | manithree | If I'm an ISP and one content provider uses 90% of my bandwidth, but only pays for 10%, should I be able to go back to them and ask for more? |
| 22:31.54 | joshh | manithree: what about customers who can only get the 1 bad acting isp, and who can't get video content (that's not their provider's own) at high quality because the nonsense dispute is dragging out for a long time? |
| 22:32.23 | frostyfrog | Last I recall, comcast isn't a tier 1, either. They've moved from tier 3 to tier 2 though. :/ |
| 22:32.25 | joshh | manithree: they're supposed to pay their upstream isp unless they peer with the content provider directly |
| 22:32.27 | frostyfrog | I think |
| 22:32.41 | manithree | Like I said, competition isn't a perfect solution and there isn't one |
| 22:32.57 | joshh | but anyway, that's the kind of crap that can "ruin the internet", a lot more so than some basic regulation to prevent it |
| 22:33.07 | joshh | so im pretty convinced that net neutrality is the good kind of regulation |
| 22:33.18 | joshh | and shouldn't be turned into a "freedom from obama!" post by mike lee |
| 22:33.35 | joshh | which of course only ignorant people will believe |
| 22:33.42 | joshh | but that's who votes |
| 22:33.49 | jima | honestly, any time i see a politician refer to "ObamaCare," i know they're selling something. |
| 22:33.59 | manithree | If I had any faith that the FCC would keep a light touch, not be susceptible to bribes, and know what they were doing, I would be all for some basic regulations |
| 22:34.00 | keldwud | joshh: you can't call people ignorant if they disagree with you </s> |
| 22:34.29 | manithree | jima: Obama owned the name Obamacar |
| 22:34.33 | joshh | keldwud: i mean ignorant literally, of how the internet works and what net neutrality even is (general populace) |
| 22:34.33 | manithree | Obamacare |
| 22:34.34 | jima | manithree: i won't disagree with assertions that the fcc is incompetitent/corrupt. |
| 22:34.38 | joshh | and fwiw im not calling manithree ignorant |
| 22:34.46 | frostyfrog | manithree: RE: content providers. No, you should be billing the next guy in line more. If it's another ISP, you bill them, not the content creator. If it's a content creator, than you make changes to your internet "plans". |
| 22:35.18 | joshh | honestly i'd rather see someone like icann handle it than the fcc if that would be possible |
| 22:35.30 | joshh | it would be interesting to see assigned numbers/resources revoked for bad actors, etc |
| 22:35.43 | joshh | but then that might be too much power over the internet even for them |
| 22:35.47 | jima | i don't necessarily trust the US government to do it at all, either. |
| 22:35.48 | manithree | I wouldn't be opposed to technical guidelines from ICANN |
| 22:35.54 | joshh | but basically it doesn't come down to loving vs hating regulation here |
| 22:35.59 | jima | manithree: there you go |
| 22:36.12 | joshh | the fact is that if a powerful us corp is doing bad things on the internet that suck, nobody has any way to stop it other than government regulation |
| 22:36.17 | jima | guidelines written by an independent, clueful organization, enforced by the government? |
| 22:36.24 | joshh | unless we get lucky with a boycott or something |
| 22:36.27 | joshh | which isn't always an option |
| 22:36.47 | manithree | jima: enforced by the gov opens it up for all the same corruption and rent-seeking |
| 22:37.30 | joshh | i think we could have pretty simple and sensible neutrality regulations that don't cause a lot of unintended problems |
| 22:37.33 | jima | manithree: isn't deregulation potentially rent-seeking? |
| 22:38.01 | manithree | Not by my definition of rent-seeking |
| 22:38.11 | jima | "the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits." |
| 22:38.26 | joshh | isn't rent seeking basically just charging a fee for some useless non-service |
| 22:38.31 | jima | manipulating public policy = destroying net neutrality? |
| 22:38.54 | jima | that seems solid to me |
| 22:39.02 | keldwud | what does rent-seeking mean? |
| 22:39.11 | jima | keldwud: i just quoted google's definition |
| 22:39.31 | keldwud | wait did I just see somebody say "not by my definition of this word?" |
| 22:39.36 | jima | https://www.google.com/search?q=define+rent-seeking |
| 22:39.46 | frostyfrog | jima: Isn't comcast & co bribing the FCC to destroy net neutrality for good? |
| 22:39.46 | joshh | manithree: who is your isp btw? |
| 22:39.51 | jima | yes, which is why i specifically quoted an internet source. |
| 22:39.56 | keldwud | when there can't be an agreed upon language, then discussions are pointless |
| 22:40.10 | keldwud | especially when the other side has "alternative definitions" for terms and words |
| 22:40.16 | keldwud | I'm out-y! |
| 22:40.21 | manithree | My ISP is vivint |
| 22:40.23 | jima | keldwud: cheers! |
| 22:40.35 | keldwud | jima: thanks! :) |
| 22:40.39 | jima | manithree: ok, that might contribute to your feelings. |
| 22:40.56 | joshh | do you have other viable options? |
| 22:40.57 | jima | manithree: when's the last time you depended upon comcast or centurylink for internet connectivity? |
| 22:41.07 | keldwud | oh hey if anybody wants to have a beer, nachos, or some pool tonight, I'll be at Big Willie's from 5pm - 8pm |
| 22:41.11 | manithree | And there are lot's of facets to rent-seeking. My least favorite (generally agreed-upon meaning) of rent-seeking is using regulation to harm your competitors (or increase your own competitive advantage) |
| 22:41.28 | jima | manithree: are you claiming the definition i quoted is wrong? |
| 22:41.50 | joshh | i think neutrality is interesting because on one hand most people don't want to see the internet excessively regulated, but minimally or not at all |
| 22:41.54 | manithree | joshh: yeah, I'll probably switch back to Comcast one of these days, but I have Rise and Qwest as options |
| 22:41.59 | joshh | but it's an example of a regulation needed to force everyone to play fair |
| 22:42.07 | jima | manithree: s/Qwest/CenturyLink/ |
| 22:42.14 | jima | qwest has been dead for years |
| 22:42.14 | manithree | USWorst |
| 22:42.22 | manithree | i'm old school |
| 22:42.30 | jima | US West has been dead for...sheesh. a while. |
| 22:42.34 | joshh | since we can't have nice things, thanks to bad actors like comcat and verizon when they get a bad idea |
| 22:42.52 | jima | (caveat: i grew up in US West territory, but far from here) |
| 22:42.56 | joshh | speaking of, anyone else mind blown by centurylink buying level3? |
| 22:43.01 | joshh | never would have imagined that a few years ago |
| 22:43.23 | frostyfrog | Indeed |
| 22:43.24 | jima | joshh: not surprised, but disappointed: https://twitter.com/neojima/status/925936697036062721 |
| 22:43.31 | frostyfrog | Also that |
| 22:43.47 | frostyfrog | was surprised AND disappointed |
| 22:44.12 | jima | manithree: you might feel differently about net neutrality if your only viable isp option were one of the most vocal against it. ;-) |
| 22:44.27 | manithree | I doubt it |
| 22:44.34 | manithree | I hate comcast |
| 22:44.43 | manithree | but they do have the best Internet service in my area |
| 22:44.51 | jima | oh, so do i. but 12M/crap dsl is a less viable option here. |
| 22:45.21 | manithree | When I had CenturyLink, my uplink was about 500kbits/s |
| 22:45.23 | jima | (also, as an aside, i hate how much comcast and centurylink try to hide the upload speeds on their offerings) |
| 22:45.48 | jima | other isps tend to be more up-front about it |
| 22:45.52 | joshh | they know it will look low |
| 22:46.01 | joshh | especially when e.g. utopia can be symmetric |
| 22:46.07 | jima | i miss utopia. |
| 22:46.14 | joshh | and most customers don't know what it means anyway |
| 22:46.21 | joshh | so no benefit to listing it |
| 22:46.40 | spangborn | jima: yep |
| 22:46.46 | spangborn | I only get 5Mbit up |
| 22:46.53 | spangborn | But 35 down |
| 22:46.59 | jima | joshh: wait, are you saying that an isp, when given the choice between doing something good for consumers or good for themselves, will choose themselves??? |
| 22:47.18 | manithree | CenturyLink is upfront about it "We don't know what your link speed is until it's up and running" |
| 22:47.23 | jima | 200M/10M here, was supposed to be 250M/25M but comcast lied through their teeth. |
| 22:47.41 | frostyfrog | jima: I like it when companies choose what's better for their customers. |
| 22:47.54 | jima | we could get 1000M/35M if we cared to pay for it (and get a docsis 3.1 modem). |
| 22:48.01 | jima | frostyfrog: weird, me too |
| 22:48.07 | jima | xmission always seemed to as well |
| 22:48.20 | jima | so it's not just us-vs-them |
| 22:48.35 | frostyfrog | eve.community did it with their screen problem. They've also been insanely transparent. |
| 22:48.43 | joshh | i mean sure isps are businesses and have to make money however they can |
| 22:48.48 | jima | there's a soylent green joke to be made there...xmission is PEOPLE. |
| 22:49.05 | joshh | but treating certain protocols, internet destinations, etc differently in order to nickel and dime should never be allowed |
| 22:49.15 | frostyfrog | ^ |
| 22:49.35 | frostyfrog | It's harder to do and costs more money. |
| 22:49.39 | jima | joshh: clearly the only permissible way to do that is to enforce it by sternly-worded letters! |
| 22:49.39 | joshh | especially when the state of isp competition is what it is |
| 22:50.01 | joshh | why don't repubicans try to fix that and be useful |
| 22:50.11 | jima | "fix this or i'll go to your competition!" "ha! what competition?" |
| 22:50.53 | joshh | of course those same ISPs will simply buy enough votes against more competition, like how they try to shut down all the small fiber networks everywhere |
| 22:50.55 | frostyfrog | jima: Well, we saw comcast's prices to Google Fiber customers >_> |
| 22:51.47 | frostyfrog | I've heard that it was quite a bit different from a neighborhood "on the other side of the street" that didn't have access to Fiber. |
| 22:51.57 | jima | yeah, but google fiber quickly learned that it wasn't as fun as they were hoping. |
| 22:52.14 | frostyfrog | Yeah, yeah. I'll agree there. |
| 22:52.30 | jima | "this is boring. next hobby!" |
| 22:52.31 | frostyfrog | Still doesn't stop comcast from trying to muscle them out of business. |
| 22:52.46 | frostyfrog | (in the internet realm) |
| 22:52.56 | jima | i'd say it's less "muscle them out of business" and more "plug the leak of customers" |
| 22:58.07 | jima | it's about my quitting time (albeit i've been off the clock for a while, thanks boss)...should probably go spend time with family sooner or later. |
| 22:58.19 | jima | nice lively discussion, all. i don't hate you. yet. ;-) |
| 22:58.30 | frostyfrog | Oh dear |
| 22:58.35 | frostyfrog | "yet" |
| 22:58.50 | jima | frostyfrog: i use "yet" for all kinds of comedic purposes. |
| 22:58.53 | frostyfrog | lol, have a good evening/night ;) |
| 22:59.15 | jima | you too. everyone too, really, even manithree. ;-) |
| 22:59.48 | jima | (just because i disagree with you don't mean i wish you anything less than a great evening.) |
| 22:59.49 | frostyfrog | Today was definite proof that we're helping to keep IRC alive and kicking :D |
| 22:59.53 | jima | hahaha |
| 23:00.40 | jima | i joked yesterday "IRC is antiquated technology that no one uses anymore" (to someone i met on irc, mind) |
| 23:01.43 | frostyfrog | Have a good weekend everyone :D |