• D6fer said on Oct 13, 2009....

  Ironic......I was home sick today and actually watched this episode....it was amusing.....but don't feel like the lone ranger.....conservatives have been feeling this pain for years....for every minute of tape Stewart can produce like this, there is an hour on the flip side.
  
  btw.....I watched Coberts show afterward....I thought it was much funnier.
  

• ALIENated said on Oct 14, 2009....

  Yeah, yeah, I saw that one, too. That is about all of the show I saw. I can only stomach so much of Stewart or Colbert. At least Stewart is openly, rabidly liberal. Colbert is a mock conservative. Stewart was upset that CNN did not slant the story as they usually do (ater all, they are the ones that "fact check" Saturday Night Live skits about Obama). CNN, like other biased news networks, is probably feeling the pressure to stop being so biased. FOX News is kicking their asses by simply being honest and reporting the whole story. FOX says that Obama has a task force set up to monitor FOX. Probably so they can tell if their lies went over or not. Hey, I have a solution. Why not just be honest and tell the truth instead of lying and trying to sneak stuff past the public in the dead of night. It is the Clinton years all over again, except even worse. This presidency is destined to make the Carter presidency (the worst presidency ever) look good. How long before we have another hostage situation that makes Obama pee his pants. When will voters ever learn?

• bloc said on Oct 14, 2009....

  @d6
  Stewart is more consistent than Colbert, but Colbert's high points are higher. 
  
  
  I think you guys missed the point that is my biggest complaint about the media, it's the idea that "objective" means having two opposing people on and letting them say whatever they want.
  
  
  @alien
  The idea that fox is honest and tells the whole story is absurd. 

• ALIENated said on Oct 14, 2009....

  It is only absurd to someone who has lost sight of what the truth really is. Maybe you are too young to know truth when you see and hear it. Democrats have been lying and cheating for decades now, probably since before you were born. Drunken liberals like Ted Kennedy and morally bankrupt liberals like Barney Franks have been screwing this country up for years, all the while treated like gods by the biased media. And you may be confusing the news on FOX with the Hannity show and the O'Reilly show. Those shows, or at least O'Reilly's, are probably less blatantly conservative than the regular news is blatantly liberal on just about every other news network, and shows like Stewart's and Colbert's. You only have to watch CNN or MSNBC for a few minutes to get totally absurd liberal bias on EVERYTHING. I really do not care if FOX ever reports the liberal side of things. They bring balance by reporting the conservative view. Liberals are just afraid of the truth like vampires are afraid of the light. The healthcare legislation is a perfect example. They want to pass something, unread, in the middle of the night because they know what is best for everyone. That would be truth only if higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, Medicare cuts, and rationing of services was better for everyone. The fact that you cannot see all that further proves to me that you do not know what is or is not absurd. Chris Mathews said something to the effect that he wished Limbaughs head would blow up. Let me know the next time you hear something that irrational on the FOX News network. If you ask me, Mathew's head has already blown up, or at least his brain.

• bloc said on Oct 14, 2009....

  Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it."

• bloc said on Oct 14, 2009....

  Here's chris matthews with a man-crush on Bush. It's hard to say that someone who says this is rabidly biased against republicans. 

• ALIENated said on Oct 15, 2009....

  So what. And the link does nothing.

• bloc said on Oct 15, 2009....

  it shows that his oddball comments swing from left to right on a regular basis. 

• ALIENated said on Oct 15, 2009....

  I mean, I could not get the link to work. And nothing Chris Mathews says would surprise me. His show should be called Nutball instead of Hardball.

• javadewd said on Oct 16, 2009....

  CNN pooh poohed even your favorite subjects during the Bush reign, bloc. If you were trying to prove that they are worthless as far as presenting the facts, then you hit it right on the nose. For a 24/7 news channel, it isn't fair and balanced at all.
  
  Now before I strike a blow at Fox, you do realize why the NYT and most every blow-hard newspaper (news-print especially, but even some magazines) is dying right now, right? I don't have to explain all of this to you... Right?
  
  And Fox has its bright points, but it isn't a polished news outlet either. I'm actually quite amazed that it's getting stellar ratings, but it seems to be more for the biased entertainment, not necessarily for its news coverage. Much like Jon & Kate becoming just "Kate" I do miss the "& Combes" side of that TV blow-hard what's his name... Not much of a fan of his solo gig. His arguing with libs on the radio makes me nauseous.
  

• bloc said on Oct 16, 2009....

  This is one of my pet issues, and I have what seems to be a somewhat unique view. I don't believe there every is such a thing as unbiased coverage. However, I think people often conflate bias and integrity which are two different things. What I want out of news is integrity regardless of the bias. 

• javadewd said on Oct 16, 2009....

  You don't just take bias from both sides and slap them together?
  
  If only watching the news was like reading an instruction manual on how to put together a bicycle... Damn human corruption!
  

• bloc said on Oct 16, 2009....

  if it has integrity, that's fine. The video shows the common way, which I believe is done for economic reasons. YOu don't need to pay people to investigate facts, you just grab two blowhards and let them talk over each other for 5 minutes. Bam, profitable "news".

• javadewd said on Oct 16, 2009....

  Yeah, I stopped watching television altogether when it seemed like they were just making the shit up as they went along... And in hindsight it's sad when an "entertainment" program makes better sense of the news and does more actual investigative reporting than the actual news networks. Must be why Glenn Beck is getting such swell ratings or something... Oh, and Jon Stewart, too.

• bloc said on Oct 16, 2009....

  I think Beck gets the sympathy ratings for all the crying ;)

• ALIENated said on Oct 16, 2009....

  Years ago, we had people like Walter Cronkite showing up a couple of times a day with national and world news, and a local team doing local news. There were Sunday morning political shows (Meet the Press, etc.) even then. Now we have whole networks dedicated to "news" 24/7. I think they found during the O.J. trial and some other events like that, that people can become news junkies. Now people looks for shows that reflect their views of the world and of politics. Beck and Stewart are simply TV news evangelists. Two guys preaching their messages to their congregations. We are really left to dig out the facts for ourselves or we might as well take a seat in a Beck or Stewart pew. We live in an age of half truths and omitted details that might spin a story a whole different direction. (Was the balloon boy story real or a hoax?) But most of all, politics has become a contact sport. Most people have really lost sight of why they are a Republican or a Democrat / Socialist, or why they are liberal or conservative. They simply want to score one for the team. The Obama administration is the culmination of all that. With so many bigger things to worry about in this world, they are worried about FOX News, that FOX might make their team look bad. It is really pathetic for the most part. Especially when FOX is usually just pointing out some lie they are promoting. Why not just stop lying and then you do not have to worry about it.

• javadewd said on Oct 17, 2009....

  Yeah, I haven't heard bloc chime in on his take against the new anti-Fox wing of the white house. I mean, don't you find that just a tad disturbing? I mean Chavez had something similar to this entity in his rise to power for crying out loud!

• ALIENated said on Oct 17, 2009....

  Is Chavez the one who gave Obama his book? Maybe Obama finally got around to reading it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

• javadewd said on Oct 17, 2009....

  Always two there are... A master and an apprentice... Mmm?

• bloc said on Oct 17, 2009....

  chavez used government power to directly control the media. The Obama administration has done nothing like this so the comparison is faulty.
  
  Speaking out against something is a right everyone has, including the President. Do you disagree?
  

• javadewd said on Oct 17, 2009....

  Oh for Christ's sake, bloc, sometimes you talk like SeanRenaud, trying to get a yay or nay to statements that are vehemently false to begin with or simply rhetorical. Observe :
  
  Using my tax dollars to spend time researching and doing fact checks on SNL skits are a wonderful abuse of government power and federal resources, do you disagree?
  

• bloc said on Oct 20, 2009....

  i don't believe the spreading of facts as an abuse of power. Again, Obama's actions here are nothing like Chavez's actions which were a clear abuse of power.
  
  
  

• javadewd said on Oct 20, 2009....

  You call this statement spreading facts?
  
  
  Speaking out against something is a right everyone has, including the President. Do you disagree?
  
  
  O RLY?
  
  And you don't consider a "major media news outlet" like CNN running a fact-check on a comedy program as any sort of abuse of power, or perhaps "Obama's actions here are nothing like Chavez's actions which were a clear abuse of power" because Obama's use of it was... Unclear? Stealthy? Not as blatantly obvious?
  
  Well, hopefully next time Obama will break into the news coverage and announce that "I am clearly abusing my power just like the great Hugo Chavez once did" just for you, his loyal servant (3:22+), so that you can be enlightened. Nah, he won't do that. He'll just let it go over your head again... It's less effort on his part, and he knows it... My question is : Why don't you? This doesn't smell at all to you?

• bloc said on Oct 20, 2009....

  I have a hard time following your stream of conscience form of commenting. 

• ALIENated said on Oct 20, 2009....

  The Obama administration has done nothing like this [directly controlling the media] so the comparison is faulty.

  I was just listening to Laura Engraham and her guest talking about the Obama adminstration's battle with FOX News, their push to reinstate the fairness doctrine (translated ... control conservative speech), and their push for internet neutrality. They want to control all decent. You would have shit a brick if the Bush administration had tried any of these ploys. I do not approve of all the Republicans / conservatives do, but ignoring all that lefty leftists like Obama are doing is just comical on your part. The ACORN story alone proves that the mainstream media is totally in Obama's pocket. They know ACORN was criminally instrumental in getting Obama elected (by unlawfully diverting funds to his campaign) so they do not want any part of the story to the point that they accuse FOX of making it all up. Even lefty leftist John Stewart could not believe how the media was ignoring this obvious criminal activity. I am sure it will all come out during Obama's impeachment a couple of years from now. There is so much corruption around Obama, once it all hits the fan, he is a goner. I actually kind of feel sorry for the guy. He has hitched his wagon to too many bad stars.

• bloc said on Oct 21, 2009....

  You clearly don't understand what net neutrality is, and Obama has spoken out against reinstating the fairness doctrine. source. You may want to listen to shows that get the basic facts straight. 

• javadewd said on Oct 21, 2009....

  Sorry, I was trying to interject humor instead of simply saying that your comment was absurd... Next time I won't beat around the bush, because it obviously offends you. However, if you'd rather I elaborate for the sake of understanding, feel free to ask.

• ALIENated said on Oct 21, 2009....

  Number one, that article was written in February. He might well have changed his mind by now on the Fairness Doctrine, but I hope he has not. That would just be another nail in his coffin next election. And they were using the term net neutrality (for lack of a better term probably) to mean shutting down free speech on the internet. I think you are still judging Obama as you would Clinton or Carter or a normal Democrat. Obama is not a normal Democrat. He told you that during the campaign. He is in office to CHANGE us to something totally different, at least for America. Other parts of the world know what he meant by CHANGE. They have been CHANGEd and it was not for the better. You clearly do not understand what Obama is all about. I can understand you giving him the benefit of the doubt, but at some point you have to start adding it all up and using some of that logic you are always talking about. Obama and his crew want to control all the media as they control the liberal media. Freedom of speech is the first thing to go when you plan on making the kind of CHANGEs Obama has in mind.

• javadewd said on Oct 22, 2009....

  No, instead he has declared war on Fox News and waffled on Afghanistan and has blamed Bush for it again.

• ALIENated said on Oct 23, 2009....

  Bush? He was that president that left office almost a year ago, right? Hmmm. Wonder how long Obama et al can blame their incompetence on Bush and Cheney. I heard about Cheney slamming their Afghanistan policies the other day. Guess what the response was from the White House. Hint: Bush was mentioned. ha ha ho ho The Obama years are like being in junior high again. I wish Bush and Obama could meet after school and just have it out once and for all. Biden and Cheney might be a more entertaining match. Inexperience and dopeness is so entertaining, but it does not make for very good legislation, which we are all going to have to suffer through.

• javadewd said on Oct 23, 2009....

  Wonder how long Obama et al can blame their incompetence on Bush and Cheney
  
  
  I figure for as long as Obama can spew carbon dioxide from his drivelled pie hole and not get slapped with a mutli-million dollar tax by the environmentalist loons.
  
  
  I wish Bush and Obama could meet after school and just have it out once and for all.
  
  
  That would be the proper dignified response... For a sixth grade level bully who doesn't pack a lunch and doesn't do his homework unless it's one of his underling flunkies. Besides, if Bush whipped his ass, then he'd just be called a racist and the left would want the NAACP to investigate him for torture.
  
  
  Biden and Cheney might be a more entertaining match.
  
  
  Like watching the original light saber battle in Star Wars Episode 4. Sheesh!
  
  
  Inexperience and dopeness is so entertaining, but it does not make for very good legislation, which we are all going to have to suffer through.
  
  
  "Oh these times, they are a changin'"... Barack Obama never heard that song sang so loud before... Maybe he just didn't know the lyrics and was kinda making them up as he went along. Too bad his reality check is about to get cashed and his race card about to expire.
  

• bloc said on Oct 27, 2009....

  net neutrality is a very specific thing, and this is a great example of people trying to trick those that don't understand into supporting something that is the opposite of what they believe it is.
  
  Currently the internet is the embodiment of free speech. All traffic on the network is treated the same. It's all routed through the same routers, etc, etc. Here's an example, when you get internet service at home you can go to any site on the internet, there are no restrictions. All of those sites will have the same connections to your house, none are priveleged or restricted.
  
  Large corporations want to restrict it, they don't want everything to be equal ont he internet. They want to be able to say that certain traffic from certain sites don't get to use the main connections, or must use the some ghetto connections. Or they want to prevent your computer from connection directly to my computer.
  
  People that are for net neutrality are for freedom on the internet. These include companies like google, Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, and Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the web.

• javadewd said on Oct 27, 2009....

  As one who just had to sit through a "net neutrality" broadcast from IPTO as part of my business, I have to respectfully say that your defining of net neutrality is totally full of shit and has been taken from a political talking point. To the latter extent I'm disappointed you didn't do your research, bloc.
  
  Bob Kahn, IP's co-inventor and one of the very fathers of the internet, has called the term 'net neutrality' a "slogan" and states that he opposes establishing it warning that "nothing interesting can happen inside the net" if net neutrality strictures become legislation. "If the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities," Kahn stated, "then the party that takes the lead in building that new capability, is probably only going to have it on their net to start with and it is probably not going to be on anybody else's net."
  
  Besides, the only type of tiers that they are talking about are those between 24k and 2.4m, most of which right now are cell-phone and otherwise wireless based.
  
  Also, the only "large corporations" that want to restrict it are the pay-as-you-go internet services (especially cell-phone internet service providers). DSL and MUX/cable companies that provide the "last mile" to your house don't really care.
  
  By granting these vultures 'net neutrality' you are essentially building a market similar to the spectators who ran up the price of a barrel of oil and by doing this will either bankrupt larger service providers or make the service price so unreasonably high that nobody will want it. Welcome to either CyberPunk or the Dark Ages, depending on who gets the upper hand in this market. Without net neutrality, we stay in the happy middle. As Bob Kahn says : this is "a solution looking for a problem."
  
  In conclusion, this fight is with metro-area networks and cell phone ISPs. For the government to have to come in to regulate it is bullshit and it just goes to show that the BOA has more time to push bullshit causes like this, "government-ran/public option/customer choice" health care and global warming than to make a decision on Afghanistan. I don't think the American people nor our soldiers on the battlefield deserve this distraction, or any others for that matter.
  

• ALIENated said on Oct 27, 2009....

  As I said, call it what you want, Obama / liberals / Socialists, would love to shut down free speech on the internet just as they would love to shut down free speech on conservative radio shows and conservative TV channels like FOX News. Ignore that fact, if you would like, but I think the Obama administrations reaction to FOX News says it all. These knotheads do not like for anyone to disagree with them, and they are willing to do anything to stop that disagreement. They are convinced they are right and that the end justifies the means. It is just the Chicago way.

• bloc said on Nov 02, 2009....

  @javadewd
  There's more to it than that. Let me give you one real example. One of the phone companies in canada that also provides internet access, I don't remember their name, degrades skype packets because it competes with their phone service.
  
  The internet shouldn't work this way.
  
  @alien
  You seem to be describing hte Bush admin, not the Obama admin.
  

• ALIENated said on Nov 02, 2009....

  Whatever. You have evidently had one too many cups of the coolade.

• javadewd said on Nov 03, 2009....

  @bloc -- I'd almost believe you, but if you're talking about Rogers Communications, their telephony's packet quality sucks without any help, so I don't see how they can blame that on some sort of "service conspiracy." Also, even if somebody actively admitted to such a thing, how can that really be so? If there is too much skype traffic hitting a firewall, it could degrade just as well. It would be like me peeing in a lake up-stream from a treatment plant and claiming that everyone in the town was getting a sip of my lemonade.
  
  If that's the kind of argument they're using to push this "net neutrality" bill, they're only going to cause more problems rather than grant more freedoms. Let me give you a good example:
  
  AT&T is infamous for switching its mail server port around and not telling its customers. It's frustrating at best, and to me its an unnecessary service call to many of my residential clients homes, however, the purpose is to detour spammers and hackers from latching onto their port like a digital leech and bleeding the overall bandwidth of the system. If they make legislation saying that ISPs can't change their own settings, though, then any one of these attacks (especially a DoS) would cause so much customer down-time that they'd switch to a competitor, like cable.
  
  In my humble opinion, its much like taking a flight on a plane. It's not a democracy when you're off the ground. They provide a service of getting you from point "A" to point "B" as comfortably as they can. If every passenger on the plane suddenly decides that they want to go to a different destination mid-flight, they're shit out of luck. If one person acts a fool, they should be sufficiently restrained to avoid making the experience a living hell for the rest of the paying customers / passengers.
  
  The same is true with Telcos. If you don't like what they do, switch... Oh, and shut the fuck up, because they don't want to hear it... If enough people switch to cause them a problem with their bottom line they'll either change to appease their customer base or go tits up. It's not up to the government to police the internet like that. This is just another sign that the government is too big and poking its nose into something it doesn't understand.
  

• bloc said on Nov 03, 2009....

  spam is a crime and net neutrality isn't going to allow it.
  
  Your example isn't about the issue at hand. That isn't an example of throttling or blocking legitimate traffic. Don't get me wrong, there are valid arguments against net neutrality. But, for alienated to suggest that supporters of net neutrality want to take away peoples freedom is absurd. Hell, it's the opposite of any knowledgeable understanding of the issue.
  
  Also, you do realize that the telco's are essentially a government sanctioned monopoly, and for good reason. There are only two cables running out to your home, phone and cable tv. These lines are owned by their respective companies. It's not feasible for a competitor to dig up everyones yard in the US and run a new cable, i.e. there is no real way to have competition in this market.
  
  Well, there is a way, it's called government. The government can own that line and let any company use it, or regulate it in such a way that even though your phone company owns and maintains the line, they must allow other companies offer competitive services over the lines.
  
  Removing government from this situation makes no sense.
  

• javadewd said on Nov 04, 2009....

  Spam is a crime and there are laws on the books that have been weathered in the court to enforce it. So why do we need "net neutrality" for that?
  
  Listen. Skype uses a single port. If someone is using Skype from one big network to the next, it bottlenecks at that port. It's going to degrade if you have 10M customers and even 1% of them are using Skype, because it's having to go through a single port. No ISP should have to equip themselves to handle that kind of specialized traffic it's an expense that Skype doesn't pay for. In fact, perhaps if one did, they could capture that niche market. I don't see how you can say my example doesn't gel with what you are saying. A telephony network is internal to the "big network," yet telephony as a technology sucks rocks because it's a great example of releasing an unproven technology too fast on theory.
  
  Honestly, I don't understand Alien's angle here, either, but I know how the inner-workings of net neutrality will affect my day-to-day operations and it isn't good. Much like "global warming" they can't explain how their new law is a benefit and it seems to be based on malformed theory of how things work, not reality. (I mean what's next, is Obama going to have a bunch of people at the White House in lineman's outfits and hard-hats?) I have been taking in feeds about it with a grain of salt, because if it does have any sort of real benefit, it would be worth supporting. To me, though, right now, it all looks like marshmellow fluff. When the inventor of IP says it's a solution looking for a problem, I tend to believe him, because he doesn't have much of a political agenda.
  
  Yes, I'm glad that somebody did perk up and remind us that telcos are government-subsidized monopolized public corporations! However, being from an area and working for a major cable company, I want you to know that according to the government, there are actually five major utilities that can be "running out to your home" and regulated by the state and local authorities : Electrical, LNG, telco, cable and sewer. Electric companies have had the technology for over a decade to provide error-free 10MBps (yes, MBps not Mbps) internet service to your home. Other utilities actually use that pipe now! It has never been applied in most areas for... No reason. That's worth investigating! Could it be that the evil environmentalists don't want to make coal-burning plants look better because they provide cheap internet? I know, it's a stretch, I'm just tossing it out there in jest. Don't be hatin'! 'Tis odd, though.
  
  The idea that government is the answer is too broad a target for me to pelt at all day, and perhaps that's what's bringing on the metal rain, bloc. Government really doesn't have a dog in this fight, but wants to control it anyway. Until we get to Internet2 or jacking into the wet-wire implants in our head, I think government should keep their nose out of it until such a thing is on the verge of reality. But I guess that's my humble opinion. It's not removing government from what it has regulated already (and could continue to regulate and mildly shape more regulation), so your argument just doesn't sound rational. Maybe you meant something else by your two brief paragraphs there...? Just giving you the opportunity to expand on that, because it just sounds... Well, "moon bat"-ish.
  

• bloc said on Nov 05, 2009....

  You don't understand how ports work, they aren't physical things. Second, the company admitted to degrading skype traffic on purpose. The ISP decide to protect it's cash cow in an anti competitive way. I think preventing these anti competitive behaviors is a clear benefit for competition and innovation.

• javadewd said on Nov 06, 2009....

  I don't understand how ports work? Shit! Somebody revoke all of my Cisco certs!! Anybody? Somebody? No? Oh, well... Moving on...
  
  I've already explained to you that even if somebody had outright admitted that they were purposely degrading skype traffic is the equivalent of someone pissing next to a water treatment plant and bragging that everybody was drinking their lemonade. You obviously didn't get the analogy, but I have come to expect that from you... I don't know why my satire goes right over your head sometimes, I don't think of you as that dense... At least on most days.
  
  The ISP can also decide to pull up stakes and then what? You ain't got no internet. Whah. What? You want the government to "bail them out" by taking them over? And you wonder why the right are bitching about this... Is it that hard to see!?
  
  Competition and innovation my ass. If that many people are using Skype, then perhaps Skype needs to get off their dead ass and make their own network like competitors such as MagicJack and Vonage. Oh, but that costs money and you want *FREE* well that would mean sucking on the government tit, then, wouldn't it? That would mean that *EVERYBODY* would pay for *YOUR* damn Skype connection. I don't think so, my digital panhandler pal. You want competition? Buck up and pay for your level of service! The rest of us use more reliable telephony technology for that very reason and by that very method.
  

• bloc said on Nov 06, 2009....

  the problem is that a startup company like skype can't run cable out to your home. They have to go through the monopoly that is either the cable company or the phone company. This is why net neutrality is needed imo.
  
  
  On to ports. The data passing over your cable or dsl line is just a stream of 1's and 0's. That's all it is. It doesn't matter of those 1's and 0's are all for the same port, or are evenly distributed between lots of ports. When that stream of 1's and 0's hits your computer it inspects the 1's and 0's and determines which packets are for which ports, and then sends those packets to the application that is assigned to that port. 
  
  
  The ISP doesn't have to care at all about these ports, and in terms of bandwidth, it's all one big stream and ports don't have to matter. However, the ISP can inspect the packets just like your computer can, and it can decide to do special things with it, like intentionally degrade the packets from skype. But, it really makes no difference to the isp which port the traffic is on. The bandwidth is the same regardless. 

• javadewd said on Nov 07, 2009....

  Skype is a public domain parasite and if people don't want degraded traffic, then they shouldn't use it. They should use Firefly or something less putrid. If "net neutrality" is suppose to help free services like Skype, then it should die a miserable and painful death.
   
  On to ports. The data passing over your cable line from the tap to the house isn't 1's and 0's, it is actually a multiplexed channel broadcast from a concentrator that usually services between 50 to 80 homes. The modem in your home listens for this channel like a television set and then decodes your 1's and 0's and reverses the process to queue your IP packets back to the concentrator. Again, since you don't have a clue what you're talking about, you shouldn't lean on such horribly bad information.
   
  As for ISPs : If I have a 10M customer base using an array of switched OC-128 lines and 10% of my users are bleeding-heart cheap-skates using Skype, then that could easily eat up 1.2Gbps according to this and this. But, really, what's 1.2Gb? I guess in your opinion ISPs should just get bigger optical carrier lines and then charge their subscribers less for such activity. Dude, you've gotta be fucking kidding me.

• bloc said 13 days ago....

  "The data passing over your cable line from the tap to the house isn't 1's and 0's"
  
  this is flatly wrong. I know very well what I'm talking about, I've written a lot of networking code in my life. The port doesn't make any difference, and this most recent comments of yours essentially says that. The multiplexing doesn't care at all about the port number. You know, like port 80 for web sites.
  
  The problem you describe here is easily solved with the confines of net neutrality. Get rid of 'unlimited' contracts for home users, and setup tiers based on bandwidth usage.
  
  You are missing the point about net neutrality. At this point you simple want to argue with me so I'll stop.
  

• javadewd said 13 days ago....

  It ain't software, Jack. It's hardware. It's Level 1. The cable decodes the channel at about 700MHz. Do I have to demonstrate how to clip the sine wave into a square wave, too??
   
  You're talking about how a router streams traffic. I'm talking about how a router handles high volumes of users using the same damn port. Yeah, Skype "commandeers" port 80 -- the same damn port used for web server traffic. Routers have to translate point-to-point the private network address of one big network to the private network address of another big network. It does make a HUGE difference in the amount of traffic these routers have to handle!
   
  Again, you can't handle the truth, so you sell "net neutrality" off the back of the wagon like it's some sort of end-all cure-all elixor. Sniff any carbon monoxide lately?

• bloc said 10 days ago....

  the port doesn't make a difference in the amount of traffic the routers can handle. It simply doesn't. Anyone that knows anything about this already knows that I'm right so I'll stop.
  
  "Routers have to translate point-to-point the private network address of one big network to the private network address of another big network. It does make a HUGE difference in the amount of traffic these routers have to handle!"
  
  This is true, but it has nothing to do with ports.
  

• javadewd said 9 days ago....

  Much like knowing the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, you don't know the difference between hardware and software. Congratulations, bloc, you were obviously one of the tree-hugging few who slipped through our illustrious educational system. Perhaps you can find another solution for a problem we don't have and blog about it... Love ya, pal! Tell the rest of 'em at Sierra Club high for me.

• bloc said 9 days ago....

  routers use software to do that translation you're talking about. You know, when you log into your cisco router and setup the configurations, you are doing that in software and the software does the routing. 

• javadewd said 9 days ago....

  Yes, and HARDWARE has to take the brunt of 1M Skype users beating through a network with 10M accounts on it. In order to make sure that everybody can get a sustainable transfer rate, you have to add more HARDWARE. Now why don't you take your intellectually dishonest argument and go play hide and go poke yourself in the eye!

• bloc said 9 days ago....

  what you just said is true, but it's not what you said earlier. This has nothing to do with ports, nor does it affect my point about net neutrality.
  
  Here's my view one more time on nn. This problem should be solved by isp's moving away from "unlimited" internet plans for customers. It should not be solved by allowing isp's to degrade the packets of specific companies or individuals. The former solution does not have freedom of speech problems, and it doesn't have anti-competitive problems. The latter does, and it's why I'm for net neutrality.
  
  
  

• javadewd said 8 days ago....

  What you said is not true, and it's exactly what you've been saying. Also my original comment (regarding Skype and ports) was :
   

  Listen. Skype uses a single port. If someone is using Skype from one big network to the next, it bottlenecks at that port. It's going to degrade if you have 10M customers and even 1% of them are using Skype, because it's having to go through a single port. No ISP should have to equip themselves to handle that kind of specialized traffic it's an expense that Skype doesn't pay for.

  So again, you don't know the difference between hardware and software, nor do you seem to understand network traffic, bottlenecks, or anything else that you've "wrote papers about" but obviously never used any of this technology on a first-hand basis like I do every day. I'm also getting very tired of your flatly wrong, ignorant and totally irresponsible comments like "you don't know anything about ports" when you obviously have little more than a thimble's worth of real-world experience using them. Why don't you go write a paper about how the earth is flat and when someone proves you wrong, you can squirm out from under their argument by saying that they don't know anything about the earth!

• bloc said 8 days ago....

  it doesn't bottleneck at the port. anyone that knows anything about this stuff knows that. It's funny how you didn't bold the part I am disagreeing with, the use of the word port.
  
  You're just arguing to argue, and as I said before, anyone that knows anything about this stuff already knows that I'm right.
  

Comment on "Why the media sucks"

Currently tagged	politics the media media bias guilty both (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment