Topic: ISP Thread 2: The return of net neutrality (Read 22702 times)

Catloaf · « **Reply #120 on:** September 23, 2009, 05:40:38 PM »

Quote from: Mongrel on September 23, 2009, 06:23:36 AM

Well in the REST of the world, the Red party is usually the Liberal/Socialist party and Blue is used for Conservatives. You guys are just crazy.

Blame FDR and Nixon for that.

FDR made the Democrats (often racist) socialists. And after Civil Rights passed, Nixon took the now very angry racists out of the Democrats and put them into the Republican party which then officially became the party of conservatism and dragging it's heels in the face of social progress.

Transportation · « **Reply #121 on:** September 23, 2009, 06:11:51 PM »

Reagan was more influential in cementing the current GOP hydra, to be honest. Nixon was a traditional paleoconservates, which means changes is bad and bomb cambodia. The last of the prominent (Bush1 kinda counts) Hoover/technocratic Republicans.

Reagan actual made Christ and Capitalism into some kind of impossible philosophy that eventually led to breaking the FDR Congressional monopoly the Democrats had for >40 years.

Carter tried something with injecting Christian moralism into politics earlier, but his brand wasn't as popular.

And the Red/Blue thing happened because of 2004 and a traditional coloring standard for incumbent presidents. I have no idea why it caught on.

EDIT: stupid buttons and also repetitive clauses.

Mongrel · « **Reply #122 on:** September 23, 2009, 06:25:34 PM »

Quote from: Catloaf on September 23, 2009, 05:40:38 PM

Quote from: Mongrel on September 23, 2009, 06:23:36 AM
Well in the REST of the world, the Red party is usually the Liberal/Socialist party and Blue is used for Conservatives. You guys are just crazy.
Blame FDR and Nixon for that.

FDR made the Democrats (often racist) socialists. And after Civil Rights passed, Nixon took the now very angry racists out of the Democrats and put them into the Republican party which then officially became the party of conservatism and dragging it's heels in the face of social progress.

How is this even remotely related to what I said.

I was talking about modern-day colour-coding of political parties. This non-sequitur response has genuinely confused the sneezing hell outta me.

FOR GOD'S SAKE, HELP ME OUT HERE MAN.

Classic · « **Reply #123 on:** September 23, 2009, 06:28:45 PM »

I think he's explaining that once, long ago, the color coding matched up. Informative!

Transportation · « **Reply #124 on:** September 23, 2009, 06:37:27 PM »

No, that only makes sense if the racists moving to the GOP somehow made them redder than before.

Give it a minute.

Also I just googled wiki+red+state for this complicated riddle and solved it in 3s.

EDIT: Also it started in 2000 not 2004 MY BAD.

Classic · « **Reply #125 on:** September 23, 2009, 06:38:53 PM »

I suppose I should paint my neck blue?

Mongrel · « **Reply #126 on:** September 23, 2009, 06:49:34 PM »

I was (rhetorically) crying for help to explain how in the hell Catloaf thought his post was a reply to mine, not for the origin of Red vs Blue, which I actually know already (not that I had mentioned that anywhere in this thread).

But, uh... I dunno. Blue necks and banjos for everyone?

Thad · « **Reply #127 on:** October 31, 2009, 05:08:04 PM »

So, okay. Most of you have probably heard by now that the FCC is pushing for net neutrality. That's good news, right?

Well, according to the EFF, it's actually not.

Here's the thing: up to this point, the FCC hasn't claimed any power to regulate the Internet. And if Congress and the courts decide they can, well, that means American ISP's are now overseen by the organization that thought Janet Jackson's nipple was worth a half-million-dollar fine.

sei · « **Reply #128 on:** April 06, 2010, 01:25:14 PM »

Quote from: http://www.latimes.com/technology/sns-ap-us-tec-internet-rules,0,6955319.story

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

SCD · « **Reply #129 on:** April 06, 2010, 01:28:53 PM »

The ball is now in the hands of the lawmakers, stateside and up. Good luck on that!

Mongrel · « **Reply #130 on:** April 06, 2010, 01:36:59 PM »

Whoashit.

Kayma · « **Reply #131 on:** April 06, 2010, 01:51:04 PM »

Here is an appropriate use for my new favorite icon.

TA · « **Reply #132 on:** April 06, 2010, 02:14:56 PM »

The FCC's authorization as written didn't extend far enough, so Congress needs to give them explicit authorization. It'll happen.

Esperath · « **Reply #133 on:** April 06, 2010, 03:02:37 PM »

proceduralfilibustersayswhat

TA · « **Reply #134 on:** April 06, 2010, 03:21:18 PM »

Hopefully, a lot less fairly soon.

Saturn · « **Reply #135 on:** April 06, 2010, 11:09:45 PM »

there's probably some procedural horseshit the FCC can still pull while half of congress acts like grade-school children

Royal☭ · « **Reply #136 on:** April 08, 2010, 08:26:01 AM »

So listening to a Comcast spokesman on NPR this morning, the basic anti-net neutrality argument seems to be, "You shouldn't forbid us from doing those things we promise we won't do anyway." Which is pretty much the argument about any regulation, but that's a larger topic.

Saturn · « **Reply #137 on:** April 09, 2010, 12:15:45 AM »

Quote from: Constantine on April 08, 2010, 08:26:01 AM

"You shouldn't forbid us from doing those things we promise we won't do anyway."

But they DID do it, why the fuck should we trust them

Cthulhu-chan · « **Reply #138 on:** April 09, 2010, 04:42:01 AM »

How dare you distract from the issue with trivial details!

Royal☭ · « **Reply #139 on:** May 06, 2010, 03:31:22 PM »

The Return of Net Neutraliy

News:

Author Topic: ISP Thread 2: The return of net neutrality (Read 22702 times)