Monday, March 2, 2015

Multicultural or Racist Emojis

Let's inject race into Emojis! What could go wrong?

In a most bizarre rambling video DNews has ever done they talk about injecting race into a non-race sensitive communication to celebrate multiculturalism to make race less significant. What what? Racialising a neuter technology makes it less racist?

This will provide so much food for the trolls they will bloat our data streams.

Now the wrong person using the wrong emoji can be called racist.

We live in such a comfort zone we are designing ways to detect racism in the way you type. We are demanding you all be sheeple less be called racist or sexist.

I'll say it. I'm racist if it means I'm okay if I'm white. I don't really care what race you are but I'm okay with being white. Racism seems to now mean you can't like being white.

I'm also a male and I am good with that. And somehow that make me sexist in the trill chatter of today's language.

So we will now take one of the inert communications where we exchange ideas and insert race. The sex will follow, right?

So all of this coming together equally we will find ways to pollute the exchange of nothing but ideas with our race and sex to taint the quality of the idea?

You all just freaking SUCK!

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Throttling is Good

Why the FCC is wrong

The FCC voted on their regulations for the internet and in these regulations they made throttling illegal. What is throttling? Not piping someones web traffic through their fastest equipment unless a service pays a fee to ensure the traffic goes through it.

A lot of people think it is a good idea; they don't think a company should pay to use the fast lane. This analogy has been used to which I need to point out toll roads tend to be faster because you need to pay to use them and a lot of people don't want to pay for it. Who owns tool roads/fast lanes? The government.

It's like states in which gambling is illegal but there is a state lottery. But I am going a bit off topic here.

So what is the fast lane? The latest and greatest equipment.

When something new is available does a company throw away all of their old equipment and replace everything with something new? NO! That would be stupid. A blog site does not need the fastest connection. Ads do not need the fastest connection. Are people complaining they are not getting ads loaded into webpages fast enough? Screw you Adblocker Plus! Git me dem ads NOW!

A total replacement of an infrastructure with something new means a serious chance of catastrophic failure due to the new technology basically being a beta implementation even if the product is not beta but a commercial release. Installing something new always means finding out what works and what does not and correcting for "what does not" which is "beta" in the context of implementation.

New products need to be introduced into the system gradually. The services that pay for the "fast lane" are actually funding hot new technologies that will become a standard. This is market forces.

The cost the streaming movie sites to pay for the fast lane is baked into their subscription fees. This means that the fast lane is really being paid by people using the fast lane just like a toll road. Now that the FCC has banned that that means users that don't pay for streaming movies will have to pay for that bandwidth anyways because internet providers will have to raise prices to pay for this new equipment; maybe they won't raise prices and they will just let speeds lag due to lack of upgrading. Welcome to Obamanet.

New Rules

The "new rules" mean that providers can not give any preferential treatment to providers of any content. This now means that any connection you make to any user must be randomized on the response. If you want to watch a movie will you get the fastest connection or the bare minimum your contract promises or can provide?

FCC guarantees Russian Roulette connections

I believe I have dotted the points close enough that I do not need to draw the picture, but just in case here I will draw it.

There are two endpoints in an internet connection. The user/requester and the destination/content. Point A requesting point B.

Unless I have misread the release, point B is regulated, not point A.

What does this mean? You are piped through your fastest connection you paid for and the response comes back through the next available port whether it be the latest and greatest connection or a 2600 baud modem because speed discrimination is not allowed.

Nuke the reload button

So here you sit in the brave new world of 'net neutrality.' You will hit the refresh button over and over until the traffic sniffer you installed lets you know you have secured a 'fast' connection fast enough at the lowest resolution you are willing to watch the desired video you want to see. Sometimes you get it in minutes, sometimes you wait till tomorrow. Wouldn't it be nice if you had an option to pay for immediate service?

That might come. But once it does, might the FCC quash that like they quashed content providers ensuring reliable content?

Is that government equality? Equal random chance regardless of the willingness of customers and providers to secure the fastest connection through payment options?

Laissez faire internet

Laissez faire internet is gone. Its only correction is through the legislative branch or a brutal implementation of the second amendment. We fought the revolutionary war over a tax on tea. What do you value more? The internet or tea?

Hackers Paradise

What else could a hacker ask for but unbridled bandwidth. Yeah. Net neutrality means unlimited bandwidth to hackers.

So I mentioned point A is restricted through contracts but point B must get blind access to the net.

Oh joy. Root kits will now install speed detectors to see if they have top speed connections. Net neutrality will encourage cost effective speeds in root kits.

Thank you FCC for making the most cost effective services on the net available unrestricted to hackers.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

What can you do about "The Interview"?

What can you do about "The Interview"?

Gather some friends, write a script on how you think the movie would unfold or how you would write it. Now film it. Now put it on Youtube!

Sony America may have caved in but we don't have to.

Can you imagine if hundreds of amateur versions of the movie appeared on Youtube? Go out and act it out. Animate it. Use puppets. Do claymation. Is Robot Chicken up for this? Maybe Tom Ska?

Maybe Sony will leak the script and everyone can do their own interpretation. Someone can turn it into a stage play. How about a musical?

Can you think of a better way to beat these hackers try at censorship?

If we get hundreds of versions out there maybe Sony will release theirs. After all, the sting will be gone.

Announce your project in the comments here. Use "Youtube" as a verb and tweet your project with #YoutubeTheInterview!

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Why we don't need the Second Amendment

We have the Second Amendment to provide protection against the government if it raises arms against the people.

Hasn't that been happening?

So many government agencies now have their own police force; this means the agencies have arms. People worry about the NSA collecting meta data but when is the last time you heard of them kicking in an American's door and arresting them? None. However, the Bureau of Land Management had no problem invading Bundy's ranch and killing his cows over a tax dispute. Why not a court order? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raided Gibson Guitars over what wood they were using which in the end was shown they did nothing wrong. Couldn't they have sent in an inspector instead of a raiding force?

The point is arms are being raised against the people and that is only two simple examples. However the military is not raising arms against the people but faceless bureaucracies are doing so. This is why people don't recognize the violation for what it is.

We have had the Supreme Court deem it is okay for the government to take your land for financial improvement for the common good and also deem that we can be taxed for our mere existence through the Affordable Care Act.

We are also victims of Congress trying to legislate physics. Fuel efficiency in cars and pollution control causes the design of smaller and or lighter cars that are less safe regardless of their safety features. Incandescent light bulbs were not made illegal by name but made illegal by defining how much energy can be used per lumen. As a result you get bulbs with poisonous mercury or a really expensive LED bulb.

So why do you so love the Second Amendment? Where are the bodies showing you've stood up for your rights? Work within the system you say? Really? The oppression through agencies and regulations are from unelected officials you can not depose. You didn't vote in those judges nor can you kick them out using the system.

We do have elected Congressmen that have passed oppressive laws (A.C.A., light bulbs). Why are they still in power? Is that your version of working within the system?

Recently Gruber, an architect of the A.C.A., said that a tortured language, lack of transparency, and lies were need to pass the A.C.A. because the public were to stupid to approve something he thought was good for them. He's right; you are stupid.

There it is. It has been exposed that for the government to tax you for your existence they had to lie to you because you are too stupid to make decisions for yourselves.

So why are you so attached to the Second Amendment? I see no bodies proving your affection for it. All we get are crazies going into gun free zone and killing innocents; the result is a call for more gun control and you go nuts.

Where are the bodies of those that legislate away your freedoms?


I thought so.

You are never going to exercise your Second Amendment rights because as Gruber said you are too stupid.

Our lives are so comfortable that no one wants to rock the boat. People are picked off here and there by the government and there are no repercussions.

Why are you so insatiable for a right you don't want to exercise?

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Why the Celebration?

I understand it is exciting for Republicans to win so many seats but why are you celebrating? Republicans were voted in because they are the lesser of two evils.

This is nothing like 1994 when the Republicans had the "Contract with America." Remember that only two years into Clinton's term, which he won over dissatisfaction of Bush's mild recession, voter's voted for a well defined vision of the same party that they voted Clinton to oust.

2014 is very different.

People are invested in Obama emotionally like a religion or ideological like Nazism. Yes like Nazism. The lefties that don't like children saying "under God" in "the pledge of allegiance" or even saying "the pledge of allegiance" had kids singing praises to Obama. That is really sick.

This man who had never done anything in his life promised that the people would have 30 days to view laws online before he signed them but signed the A.C.A., a.k.a. Obamacare, even after Pelosi said "we have to pass it to find out what is in it." Not only did the people not get to read it but the politicians didn't. In addition all of his promises on the A.C.A. turned out to be lies. Now people are losing their health insurance and those that can now buy health insurance find that there are no doctor's accepting it. They are buying something compelled by law with no one providing service at the other end.

Let us not get started on how racist he has been or his administration. We were expecting healing.

The people saw most of this trouble when they reelected him two years ago. It took all of his promises turning to lies and start hurting people to start losing faith.

The people have been spooked by the crushing lies and the Republicans only have one year to make changes because they did not offer a plan like in 1994; the Republicans just were not Democrats.

A year from now when the presidential race starts up the Democratic nominee will ask if Republicans made things any better. They will ask the people to remember how bad things were under Bush. Yes they will invoke Bush and blame the housing bubble and economic crash on him even though it has roots dating back to the 70's. Obama will probably not be mentioned.

The Republican presidential nominee will be framed in the Bush financial crash and the single year of Republican rule in Congress which will probably not end in success. Don't forget the sexism charges that there will be if Hillary is the nominee. Get Condoleezza Rice to run for president to slap down social issues but especially because conservatives love Rice; she is awesome.

The next two years up to the next election will also have an incredible amount of racism heaped upon the Republicans for opposing Obama. That is just modus operandi.

I am not saying that it is bad for the Republicans to win as they did. Republicans must man up to the task ahead.

Otherwise this is pre-2016-election-exultation.