Search results for query: *

  1. CountArtha

    Dr. Gosnell's House of Horrors

    There's no right way to do an abortion.  I don't care whether you like it or not.
  2. CountArtha

    Dr. Gosnell's House of Horrors

    Yeah, right.  Quicker, cleaner murders paid for by Uncle Sam. :roll:

    It looks like the guy was a practicing obstetrician too.  This was like his night job or something.

    EDIT: You know, part of me still thinks this is some kind of hoax.  I mean, scissors?  Bloody pillows?  Dead baby trophies in jars?  Sounds like a Silence of the Lambs sequel or something.
  3. CountArtha

    Dr. Gosnell's House of Horrors

    OH...MY...GOD.
  4. CountArtha

    Conservative Bigots Boycotting CPAC

    mor2 said:
    so why are you surprised that, a lot of people, mostly religious, that mostly believe that gay people are wrong and go against god and their conservative family values(that are on decline) will consider this as one of the issues? 
    Click to expand...
    This isn't the Human Rights Campaign we're talking about.  This is a conservative gay organization.  They should be embraced as allies; not turned away.  Making a scene and refusing to be in the same room with them just gives the liberals more ammunition to call everyone on the Right a bigot.  I guess I should give them credit, though - they're not as cynical about "family values" as I thought they were.
  5. CountArtha

    Yarn of insignificant questions

    A dystopian future.  They are the survivors.

    Would the ocean be deeper if there were no sea sponges?
  6. CountArtha

    The good 'ol times

    The Good Ol' Times when people were friendly, good-humored and knew that they were here because they all played a game. 

    I may or may not have been there at the very end, and I hardly posted.  :???:
  7. CountArtha

    Conservative Bigots Boycotting CPAC

    "Several high-profile groups, including the Media Research Center, the Family Research Council, Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and the Heritage Foundation -- giants in the galaxy of conservative activism -- have pulled out this year, citing more than anything, CPAC's inclusion of...
  8. CountArtha

    The FCC Now Runs the Internet

    Alex_Augmented said:
    The government has always been run by people. There will always be people who seek to be dicks.
    Click to expand...
    :mrgreen:
  9. CountArtha

    The FCC Now Runs the Internet

    Archonsod said:
    CountArtha said:
    Well, it's funny you should mention pharmaceuticals, since the FDA keeps life-saving drugs off the market for years during the approval process. 
    Click to expand...
    It keeps far more life ending drugs off the market during the approval process too.
    Click to expand...
    That's still being debated.  Speaking for myself, I doubt that new drugs have anything like a 50-50 chance of killing me.

    Archonsod said:
    While you're right that the potential for groth is unlimited (which makes me wonder why you guys are worried about monopolies), there is still scarcity in the physical infrastructure of the Internet - cables, transmitters, servers, etc.
    Click to expand...
    No there's not. Any scarcity is a direct result of an unwillingness to invest in infrastructure by the ISP's.
    Click to expand...
    Scarcity in economics just means there isn't enough to fulfill the wants of consumers in the aggregate (which, for all intents and purposes, is unlimited).  It's the main reason we have to pay for things.
    My point being, it makes perfect sense for telecoms to charge a fee for the use of certain datalinks; or, in your exaggerated version, Rupert Murdoch extorting ISPs.

    Archonsod said:
    For the monopoly, you seem to be under the impression that ISP's somehow create the internet.
    Click to expand...
    No, telecommunications companies like Bellsouth and AT&T do.  It's their infrastructure too that is being regulated; not just ISP practices.

    Archonsod said:
    This is a strawman.
    Click to expand...
    Explain how precisely. If AOL buy up all the cables in your state what choice do you have? Move to another State so you can access the internet through another provider? Get the internet beamed directly into your brain via tinfoil hat? :roll:
    Click to expand...
    For all the theory about monopolists preying on smaller companies, it VERY seldom happens in practice.  Each competitor a monopolist absorbs is more expensive than the last because it controls a greater share of the remainder, so monopolies in a free market are practically fairy tales.  Besides, there's nothing barring another telecom from entering the market if consumer demand is high enough.  Like you said; the Internet is not a zero-sum thing.

    Archonsod said:
    You clearly have a different idea of what "regulation" is.
    Click to expand...
    And you seem to have no idea what the internet is. It's not a series of tubes.
    Click to expand...
    Internet = a global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardized communication protocols (hard to pull off without a series of tubes).
    World Wide Web = a widely used information system on the Internet that provides facilities for documents to be connected to other documents by hypertext links, enabling the user to search for information by moving from one document to another.

    Archonsod said:
    ejnomad07 said:
    While I can't argue against some of the good qualities of this, again the national government forgets it's place. It has no constitutional right to carry this out.
    Click to expand...
    The government doesn't need constitutional rights to do anything. The constitution is there to protect citizens from the government, not to tell the government what it can or can't do.
    Click to expand...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers
  10. CountArtha

    The FCC Now Runs the Internet

    Archonsod said:
    "Runs the Internet" is a hyperbole, but it's a bad thing that they're making rules because regulation is an obstacle to innovation
    Click to expand...
    Really. You want to tell that to the arms industry, which has continued to invent new products with alarming regularity despite being one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world. Same applies to the pharmaceutical industry, brewing industry and even security industry. In fact, can you think of any industry where innovation was stifled by regulation, because I sure as hell can't.
    Click to expand...
    Well, it's funny you should mention pharmaceuticals, since the FDA keeps life-saving drugs off the market for years during the approval process.  Sure, it saves lives (sometimes), but it also kills people while they wait and makes the process of research and development that much more costly.  And nobody said regulations put a halt on innovation, but they sure as Hell slow it down.

    Archonsod said:
    It needs room to grow
    Click to expand...
    And how precisely is that going to occur when someone like Rupert Murdoch could prevent you viewing any sites other than his by paying your ISP?
    Click to expand...
    I thought we'd been through this.  He can't do that.  Not unless I the consumer let it happen, anyway.

    Archonsod said:
    How are they supposed to make money when every blog and niche site is as fast as Yahoo! or YouTube?
    Click to expand...
    How is this our problem? If they can't make money, they should get out of business. Or do we only use that argument when companies ask for bail outs?
    Click to expand...
    No, you're right.  And if it costs $40,000 to sell hot dogs in Los Angeles, we should just go along with that too.  No need to, like, deregulate or anything.

    Archonsod said:
    It's important that they be able to allocate those limited resources based on demand
    Click to expand...
    Erm, how the hell is it limited? It's a virtual space, it can be grown as much or as little as needed. The only limitation on bandwidth comes from those ISP's refusing to invest in infrastructure and overselling their existing capacity.
    Click to expand...
    While you're right that the potential for groth is unlimited (which makes me wonder why you guys are worried about monopolies), there is still scarcity in the physical infrastructure of the Internet - cables, transmitters, servers, etc.  The companies who build that physical infrastructure need a price mechanism to dispose of it efficiently.

    Archonsod said:
    Consumers have market power too.  They don't need the FCC coming to the rescue.
    Click to expand...
    Consumers only have market power when they have choice. This regulation ensures that you have that choice, which is somewhat important given the market is currently undergoing consolidation. Or would you prefer to go back to the days when AOL held a monopoly and you were only allowed to access sites they approved of?
    Click to expand...
    This is a strawman.  We have choice without regulation of any kind.  No one is able to control the Internet; not even Google or Virgin.

    Archonsod said:
    this expressly prohibits any kind of interference in the medium by not allowing ISP's to selectively filter content or refuse to take certain traffic.
    Click to expand...
    You clearly have a different idea of what "regulation" is.

    Swadius said:
    CountArtha said:
    No, but we see them getting bought out by Saab and Toyota.
    Click to expand...
    Saab and Toyota both need to meet the same safety requirements that all other car companies must meet in order to be able to be deemed road safe and they're not bought out. Not all regulation is harmful to companies, as in this case.
    Click to expand...
    I was referring more to wages and import tariffs; costs of production which are uniquely high in this country.  It's why so-called domestic cars are so uncompetitive today.

    Swadius said:
    the government has a right to refuse or cancel their right to sell their services
    Click to expand...
    Sounds a little fascist to me. :razz:

    Swadius said:
    So first you ignore my ethical points; second, my utilitarian ones.  If the government starts regulating the Internet, it will never develop the way it would have if it had stayed a free medium.  Full stop.
    Click to expand...
    Any regulation at all will change how it will develop whether it's from the government or private individuals. In fact, any and all intervention in something will mean they will not develop when they are free of it. Your ethical point is a neutral statement; are you saying that because it wouldn't develop the way it would have if it hadn't had this intervention be a bad thing?
    Click to expand...
    Government regulation is artifice.  What you call regulation by private individuals is market activity.  There is a difference.

    mournful said:
    just 8 years ago these were the same morons who were calling people traitors if they didn't do what the government under Bush said to do. You had to go along with the invasions, give up liberties and wave ****ing flags everywhere or you were supporting the terrorists.
    Click to expand...
    *Ahem* :roll:
    CountArtha said:
    There will always be fanatics who will hate us no matter what, but there are many more who hate us because of our hawkish foreign policy.  If the United States would stop throwing its weight around so much, you can bet that Al-Qaeda and others would get fewer recruits.
    Click to expand...
  11. CountArtha

    The FCC Now Runs the Internet

    Well, of course I'd make 2G1C an exception. :lol:

    Omeene said:
    Isn't the main reason for this was because Comcast (or another ISP) was purposely choking their customer's internet bandwidth, removing certain services that was promised, without telling the customers and ignoring the complaints and questions about it. (And before you say they could've changed services, there are regions in this country where one ISP has complete control. I know Charter is the only ISP, outside of dish, in my region, and its gotten so bad that Charter went to court recently because of regional monopoly) 
    Click to expand...
    Unless there was some kind of government contract involved, I'm afraid I don't see your point.  Bad businesses lose business - usually not overnight, but they always do.  Unless, of course, regulations like the FCC's provide barriers to entry.

    Swadius said:
    CountArtha said:
    It tells ISPs and telecoms how they can and cannot utilize the infrastructure they develop and invest in.  If they don't have the right to decide who uses their services, then why should we have to pay at all?
    Click to expand...
    Most governments have some regulations for automobiles, but we don't see any car developers running away because of this.
    Click to expand...
    No, but we see them getting bought out by Saab and Toyota.

    Swadius said:
    It's not a dichotomy where all companies wouldn't invest or develop their network if they lose a little freedom in how they manage it. There's still quite a lot of money in doing this.
    Click to expand...
    I don't dispute that.  You seem to think I shouldn't have a problem with net neutrality regulations as long as they don't destroy the Internet, but the firms that own the servers and cables that make it work have a right as proprietors to dispose of them as they please.

    Swadius said:
    I've never understood it - what is everyone so afraid of if the Internet goes unregulated?
    Click to expand...
    There are certain individuals that have more power than others in terms of the internet. ISPs for example. Though it's not quite as common in the west, there are some that abuse their position. It's not so much as going from unregulation to regulation when this law passes, but regulation to regulation. In that it's regulated by the ISPs already, by private individuals, not the government. In effect, it's taking regulation away from the people that use the internet, by making it much harder for the ISPs to regulate how these people can view.
    Click to expand...
    So first you ignore my ethical points; second, my utilitarian ones.  If the government starts regulating the Internet, it will never develop the way it would have if it had stayed a free medium.  Full stop.
  12. CountArtha

    The FCC Now Runs the Internet

    Archonsod said:
    The measure stops ISP's from blocking access to sites, and prevents them slowing down your internet connection so they can use the bandwidth elsewhere (it stops short of blocking traffic shaping completely via a traffic management clause).
    Click to expand...
    It tells ISPs and telecoms how they can and cannot utilize the infrastructure they develop and invest in.  If they don't have the right to decide who uses their services, then why should we have to pay at all?  I've never understood it - what is everyone so afraid of if the Internet goes unregulated?

    Archonsod said:
    Explain a) how this lets them control the internet, and b) why precisely this is a bad thing?
    Click to expand...
    "Runs the Internet" is a hyperbole, but it's a bad thing that they're making rules because regulation is an obstacle to innovation; particularly with something as new and dynamic as the World Wide Web.  It needs room to grow - it can't shoulder heavy regulations the way the car indus- Oh, bad example.

    Archonsod said:
    Or are you saying it would be better if ISP's could drop the connection you're paying for when it suits them and they should be permitted to stop you accessing sites they don't approve of?
    Click to expand...
    Better than what?  A one-size-fits-all Internet where all parties receive the same bandwidth regardless of traffic?  How are they supposed to make money when every blog and niche site is as fast as Yahoo! or YouTube?  The Web gets bigger every day, and every bit/s requires an investment.  It's important that they be able to allocate those limited resources based on demand; hence, tiering.  Sites that want more traffic can pay for more bandwidth, and telecom companies can sell it to them.  That's perfectly fair.

    I don't buy this strawman that they'll control my access either.  When I used Verizon, I had to pay for every megabyte I downloaded over a certain size (2 GB or something ****ty like that).  When I started downloading dozens of PDFs each week I switched to a new provider.  My current ISP blocks peer-to-peer file sharing, but if that really bothered me I could drop them and switch again.  Consumers have market power too.  They don't need the FCC coming to the rescue.

    Pillock said:
    I think the idiot in purple's problem is that the FCC is infamous for its questionable a choices, and this might become something of a gateway for which they can extend their grubby little fingers all through the internet.
    Click to expand...
    More than that, I'm sorry to see the only really free medium under any kind of regulation.  However unobtrusive it may seem to you, this is their first intervention in an absolutely pristine market.  You'll all start seeing things my way when they take away your free porn. :!:
  13. CountArtha

    The FCC Now Runs the Internet

    "The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved a plan to regulate the Internet despite warnings that it could strangle industry investment and damage an economy that is still struggling to recover. "The rules would prohibit phone and cable companies from abusing their control over...
  14. CountArtha

    The Bush Tax Cuts Are Now the Obama Tax Cuts

    Wheem said:
    Sir Saladin said:
    Ron Paul is a lunatic who only cares about rich people
    Click to expand...
    Translation: Ron Paul supports economic liberty for people above my income bracket.
    Click to expand...
    I should point out that the economic and monetary reforms Paul advocates benefit the poor more than the rich.  Ron Paul is the only Republican in office who so much as talks about sound money, which means stable prices for people whose savings are mostly in dollars (e.g., the working poor and people with fixed incomes).  Watch from 5:09.  It's actually one of his better answers.

    He also supports school vouchers so poor families can send their kids to decent schools, and he opposes the subsidies and trade barriers that drive up the price of food.
  15. CountArtha

    The Bush Tax Cuts Are Now the Obama Tax Cuts

    Or, in Newspeak, "investments."
  16. CountArtha

    The Bush Tax Cuts Are Now the Obama Tax Cuts

    Not really.  We spend twice as much on entitlements as we do on the military.
  17. CountArtha

    The Bush Tax Cuts Are Now the Obama Tax Cuts

    Well, raising the national debt isn't any better, but he was gonna do that anyway so I'm okay with it. :razz:
  18. CountArtha

    The Bush Tax Cuts Are Now the Obama Tax Cuts

    Well, he could have vetoed it.  Then again, he actually tried to dissuade House Democrats from voting against it.
  19. CountArtha

    The Bush Tax Cuts Are Now the Obama Tax Cuts

    "President Barack Obama signed into law a huge, holiday-season tax bill extending cuts for all Americans on Friday, saluting a new spirit of political compromise as Republicans applauded and liberals seethed.  The benefits range from tax cuts for millionaires and the middle class to longer-term...
  20. CountArtha

    BBC - 200 Countries, 200 Years

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo Even to a market fundamentalist, it's mind-blowing.
Back
Top Bottom