OK - He gets errors - Can anyone explain why?
It's not like he is trying to access sensitive info that is a threat.

Is KFC paying off the ISP against McDs?

Thanks for letting me know, that's really useful! I don't suppose you know a way of watching Channel 4 stuff from the UK in America do ya?
In reply to this comment by thatavguy:
Or you could watch from their website


If your using Firefox or Chrome
Download the Add on Modify Headers

In the Add on, Select Add
Header Name - Type X-Forward-For
Header Value - 12.13.14.15

Make sure its enabled and then click start

You will now have access to The Daily Show and Colbert Report


>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Phreezdryd:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Phreezdryd:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Ah em, It's Jon Stewart.

Thanks! I'll blame the fact that I can very rarely watch anything Daily Show cos it's all goddamned blocked, which I remain sore about even now!

Blocked?! You have the internet, man!
There's a tube for that.

Wo-man, and I'm not very good on the internet, the only way I know how is to fuck about with my ISP address and I don't want to
I should have specified my message was in the voice of a loud, English Stephen Fry type character, and the line sounded good in my head, wrong gender intact. I guess you don't do BitTorrent then?

Hahaha, oh! Yeah, I'm not adverse to torrents, but I'm not quite curious enough to go about downloading yet. I just want it at my fingertips, so many times I've seen stuff I know I'd love and whoops! it's TDS. Fuckers...

Or you could watch from their website


If your using Firefox or Chrome
Download the Add on Modify Headers

In the Add on, Select Add
Header Name - Type X-Forward-For
Header Value - 12.13.14.15

Make sure its enabled and then click start

You will now have access to The Daily Show and Colbert Report


>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Phreezdryd:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Phreezdryd:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Ah em, It's Jon Stewart.

Thanks! I'll blame the fact that I can very rarely watch anything Daily Show cos it's all goddamned blocked, which I remain sore about even now!

Blocked?! You have the internet, man!
There's a tube for that.

Wo-man, and I'm not very good on the internet, the only way I know how is to fuck about with my ISP address and I don't want to
I should have specified my message was in the voice of a loud, English Stephen Fry type character, and the line sounded good in my head, wrong gender intact. I guess you don't do BitTorrent then?

Hahaha, oh! Yeah, I'm not adverse to torrents, but I'm not quite curious enough to go about downloading yet. I just want it at my fingertips, so many times I've seen stuff I know I'd love and whoops! it's TDS. Fuckers...

>> ^Phreezdryd:

>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Phreezdryd:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Ah em, It's Jon Stewart.

Thanks! I'll blame the fact that I can very rarely watch anything Daily Show cos it's all goddamned blocked, which I remain sore about even now!

Blocked?! You have the internet, man!
There's a tube for that.

Wo-man, and I'm not very good on the internet, the only way I know how is to fuck about with my ISP address and I don't want to
I should have specified my message was in the voice of a loud, English Stephen Fry type character, and the line sounded good in my head, wrong gender intact. I guess you don't do BitTorrent then?


Hahaha, oh! Yeah, I'm not adverse to torrents, but I'm not quite curious enough to go about downloading yet. I just want it at my fingertips, so many times I've seen stuff I know I'd love and whoops! it's TDS. Fuckers...

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Phreezdryd:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Ah em, It's Jon Stewart.

Thanks! I'll blame the fact that I can very rarely watch anything Daily Show cos it's all goddamned blocked, which I remain sore about even now!

Blocked?! You have the internet, man!
There's a tube for that.

Wo-man, and I'm not very good on the internet, the only way I know how is to fuck about with my ISP address and I don't want to

I should have specified my message was in the voice of a loud, English Stephen Fry type character, and the line sounded good in my head, wrong gender intact. I guess you don't do BitTorrent then?

>> ^Phreezdryd:

>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Ah em, It's Jon Stewart.

Thanks! I'll blame the fact that I can very rarely watch anything Daily Show cos it's all goddamned blocked, which I remain sore about even now!

Blocked?! You have the internet, man!
There's a tube for that.


Wo-man, and I'm not very good on the internet, the only way I know how is to fuck about with my ISP address and I don't want to

@renatojj

Church has high interested in religious candidates being elected. Most of the debates going on in politics are based on religious philosophy. Few off the top of my head are abortion, creationism, and women's rights. They've been going against the grain of the Constitution trying to get creationism which is a arguably religion based subject taught in schools. Which in turn possibly gets them more followers, which in turn gets them more tithing and more people in their "group" giving them more power. In fact I would argue they are specifically trying to erode the line between church and state with these arguments, injecting religion based reasons into many of the arguments.

Big media networks push for things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 where the reason for the bill is not actually what ends up happening. It was supposed to deregulate and open up the market for competition and instead it allowed them to reconsolidate by buying up competitors. And they largely don't fight with censorship on curse words because generally it drives off their audience, and those networks that don't have to censor curse words charge for the privilege of hearing them and seeing some nudity to boot. And they also support SOPA-like bills which are essential a blanket tool to censor the web....they also support monitoring and traffic shaping on the networks they control...which is another potential avenue for censorship.

You'll have to be more specific on what you're getting at......all these groups are eroding divisions we built through regulation and have been doing so steadily since the 80s at every opportunity across industries.

I've already shown that given the chance, they buy up competition to remain a monopoly. Look at ISPs, look at all the oil companies we USED to have. Look at the media conglomerates that own the majority of your radio stations ( I think there's two major radio networks, but they have like a million different stations under the same banners so it LOOKS like choice). How the record labels and movie industries are all tied together and often even tied into the same parent company that owns your ISP. Cell phone industry, ATT trying to buy T Mobile which would have brought it down to 3 major providers and they did it in the name of "better service" but still haven't announced plans to build out their infrastructure since the deal went through...why? Because it wasn't about better service, it was about buying up a competitor that offered plans at prices people preferred.

When people are unhappy with their ISPs they've tried to form local government run coop non-profit ISPs, and they get sued by the huge companies who refuse to service their area. It's happened multiple times. With regulation, they would have to provide internet to those places in a timely manner instead of preventing people from doing their own thing.

Did GoDaddy pay dearly for supporting SOPA? I heard they lost 30k subscribers at some point, but did they really? You'll have to show me on that. GoDaddy did lots of terrible things before it, yet they were still a huge provider and still are. They cybersquat on domain names people search for and allow you to buy them at "auction" from them when you try to look up if it's taken or not..they snatch it up to sell to you. They also give away people's domain names with no repercussions and a myriad of other things. Sounds like it needs a regulatory body with some teeth on it to make them act right or shut them down.

Unions are actually a really good way to fight monopolies and under the table deals, but they've been systematically villified. And unions aren't monopolies if they aren't mandatory, and most places are not fully unionized anymore. Often times they will have sections with union employees to do government work and non-union to do non-government work. Non-union guys make half the rate of union guys usually, and have less protections in place to keep themselves from getting shafted. But I don't really see how a union is a monopoly when there are lots of unions and lots of individuals in a union who make decisions for themselves and not as a collective like a company would. IE a company has a "head" that directs it and unions are a collective of individuals. Companies are people after all, unions are not (they are made up of people).

There are laws governing behavior usually based roughly on societal standards. Like pot being illegal is kind of against most of the societies beliefs, yet it remains illegal is an example of where it doesn't quite track. But overall we have laws that say you can't write a check that you know won't cash. Drunk driving, trespassing, vandalism, theft.....yelling fire in a crowded building.......setting off the fire alarm for fun.....etc. Giving people the finger isn't against the law....well probably not in most places so that might fall under social pressure. But we see that social pressure fails miserably at stopping bad behavior, so we have laws to enforce behavior...like not stealing and not murdering. This is society and people holding other people to standards, without the law to judge and convict them by the only thing you have left is personal interpretation and meeting out punishment by each individual or vigilante justice.

If you don't regulate business there is nothing stopping them, because nothing about our market is free. You can't have a free market without perfect information. You can't know every possible thing going on, so you will never have perfect information even if it was possible. So you will have swindlers and knock offs, pyramid schemes, etc. And without laws and regulations on these things, you will never be able to punish the company for what they did in a court of law.

Even if they were 100% above the board honest, they'd still be sourcing their materials from overseas and getting inferior materials to what you are paying for. It happens to the military all the time right now. They buy a bunch of nuts and bolts and some of them are chinese knockoffs that fail well after the installation is done and the machine is in operation. They can't catch them because china is basically lawless when it comes to producing goods for knock off purposes. It could just as easily be a US source doing it if we de-regulated everything and made no way for people to sue them into oblivion...because the damage would be done as soon as you buy a knock off and it fries the rest of your stuff.

The definition of "free market" right now means they want to be able to buy stuff cheap as shit from overseas and charge you US built prices for it. And when it comes to financial industry "free market" means they want to have speculation upon speculation to where the financial industry has 10-100x more money leveraged than what actually exists. It's a house of cards if they can just inflate it without any kind of acceptable risks being enforced.

Seriously? You're equating where and the laws under which one lives to where and the restrictions under which one posts videos or blogs? You're equating Google's non-monopolistic business position with the government's monopoly on violence? You're equating renouncing one's citizenship to changing one's video host?!

Global companies, for all the rights and power they hold in the U.S., do not come close to being in the same position vis-a-vis customers/citizens as a government does. Corporations don't get to decide whether you live or die. And that's the reason it generally doesn't make sense to hold them to the same standards of free speech.

I want to be clear that I'm referring only to content hosts and publishers. Clearly, the situation is different for ISPs. There's only one network, and for a given individual, likely only one (maybe two) viable access providers. Like the phone company(ies(y)), you want to guarantee universal access. Beyond that, though, I don't see what legal basis you can construct an argument to force a corporation to provide a platform for content which it believes to be detrimental to its business. By "legal basis", I don't mean strictly U.S. law and precedent, but more generally in a philosophical/historical legal sense. The only example I can think of that comes close is requiring cable companies to provide public access television.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jonny:
This seems like a flawed argument to me, Netrunner. Almost none of the other one-to-many or many-to-many media have any such requirements. Google's dominant position influences the situation, but at the end of the day, there are other options/outlets. A LOT of other options. So, the only difference I can see is that you are asserting a right not to free speech but a big audience.
>> ^NetRunner:
It should mean that you actually have the right to express yourself using modern communications networks without being censored by the network providers. It means content publishing services should have limits on what they're allowed to refuse to publish.
Google chooses to provide a publishing service to the public "for free" (though they make money off the content people are "giving" them "for free"). That shouldn't endow them with the unlimited right to censor content that's published on their service, anymore than "free speech" means there can be no limits on speech whatsoever.

To generalize your argument, you're saying that China isn't an oppressive regime that has no guarantee of free speech, because there are lots of other countries you could live in that might let you have it.
People in who want a right to free speech in China don't really want free speech, they just want to live in a country with lots of people. After all, there are lots of other countries to live in...
My position is that if it's unconscionable for a state to do it, why is it unconscionable to suggest that corporations shouldn't be permitted to do it either?

Can you traceroute to it? Does it resolve to the same IP at work that it does at home? Have you checked your hosts file to make sure it's not redirected? Silly troubleshooting steps, but it doesn't hurt to check.

Also check with the ISP and ask them of they're actively blocking it. They should be able to tell you.

>> ^Psychologic:
The real problem isn't end users downloading free stuff, it's people making a living from selling unauthorized copyrighted material.


I don't understand this reasoning. If people are downloading free stuff, then who is buying pirated stuff? Surely the only people who are making a profit are the ISPs.

It's really not envy. It's people tired of having a small portion of people suck up more and more wealth each year while they themselves can't even get a cost of living raise yearly.

It's been shown time and time again, on the whole the majority of people make less now than they did 20 years ago because they haven't gotten cost of living increases.

They marginalize your job by whatever means they can, and glorify for their positions so much so that not only does their salary not compensate them for DOING THEIR JOB but they also need yearly bonuses that exceed your 10 year income.

And then when times are tough, they continue to take those bonuses and salaries and cut out the jobs that haven't gotten a wage increase in years maybe even decades. Certainly not enough to keep up with inflation 99/100 times.

It's a silly way to operate, but they are backed by both politicians and the major money holders in the nation to enforce this weird dichotomy we have. Where even though they will tell you your job is worthless to the company...it never completely disappears...they just move it as close to poverty as they can and still get someone "satisfactory" in the position. Then move onto the next position and repeat it. After they've made their rounds, then they have to offshore as much as possible to continue the downward spiral that allows them to bring in higher and higher profits and pay out increasing bonuses.

And soon you'll see they have to outsource and offshore to other countries (from the ones they are in now) because people eventually figure out that it's fucking nuts to let these guys put a stranglehold on them like they are. Slowly tightening and tightening until it becomes more sustainable to not work versus the cost of clothing, commute, extended hours, health detriment, etc.

If they didn't have everything locked up for 50-100 years via patents and monopolistic deals, we could have small businesses spring up in our country to compete that might actually force them to pay competitive wages if they want to keep customers by providing quality service and quick repairs. But they continue to run "satisfactory"...and satisfactory standards get lowered each year. People get paid less, less people work there.....they pull in more money per employee by providing less service. And never grow or maintain their operations to stay modern (look specifically at cell phones and ISPs for this), but charge increasingly more each year for less service.

How can you envy that kind of behavior? The money they gain is coming from directly fucking over their employees and customers. The "more successful" ones are just better (more ruthless) at fucking people over.

Neither party wants this kind of behavior to end, that's why none of them actually bring all this bullshit to the forefront and call out specific businesses (especially the TOO BIG outfits) for their behavior. FCC blocking AT&T + T-Mobile merger is what they exist to do, and they are getting slapped on the back for doing it after months and months of information gathering on it, when the layperson on the street could tell you one less provider equals more being fucked as a consumer like they aren't getting fucked enough as is.

I wish they would start revoking the charters of corporations for negligence and malfeasance. They are like parasites feeding on the population at this point, and not mutualists that are good for the human body and in turn the population. And they are parasitic in more than one way, services rendered with their rising costs, and workforce shrinkage with it's decreasing wages and total amount of jobs.

I don't like the way he pronounces patents.

Beyond that, we in the US already have the majority of this on us already. I think we lack the ISP policing to such a degree that other nations might. But patented seeds? Generic drugs being denied to some degree? We got that in the US. Generic drugs aren't quite as screwed up as patented seeds and how the big corporations rape people in courts over them, but non-generic drug (and maybe some generics) pricing in the US is outrageous in comparison to other countries.

if i understand this right: i get like 50 people in other countries to agree with me on something we can make it a law? i think all the occupy wall-streeters need together and make some actual changes.

also, if your worried about this, realize that ISP companies will shoot this down, they loose the most. it just makes the wrong people responsible and have to pay for someone else's crimes. IP addresses and MAC addresses can be changed so fast, and proving anything in a digital age is so hard. But the 1% dont care about that anyways...

/rant
to anyone who runs a business (i do and have learned stuff the hard way): if you don't want your expensive products to be copied cheaply, sold at 20% the cost your selling it for and loose mad profits, make the product in question more available to the public, no one wants to pay for shitty music or movies anymore. if the public likes something, they'll support it! so make worth while products and quit acting like your the victims.
/rant

Ok, I upvote even though I really have seen this bit a number of times

He gets a little harsh towards 20 year old in this, but his great truth, which anyone should take away from it is: DO YOUR FUCKING JOB, and do it well.

If you don't like your current job then spend time looking for one you'd prefer to do, but still do your current job WELL.

I know people who are just like this and it shits me so much, because it's exactly the thing that stops them getting anywhere in life. They don't climb the ladder of success because they never have a good reference, they never show how damn good they can be at the shitty jobs so they get noticed, or come away with a great reference, to move on to the next, bigger, better job and so on.

Being shit at the shit jobs means you'll always do the the shit jobs. Be great at the shit jobs and people Fucking NOTICE. They DO...

My first real job (not counting delivery medicine by bike or working in Pizza Hut) was answering ALL the email an ISP got.. ALL of it, just me handling all complaints, queries, support requests... pretty mind numbing really... but you know what, when I left that company I was a lead client software developer, creating code to run on AT&T's customer's computers nation wide... and then when that company closed up I was recommended on to another company where I work today.

All because I DID THE SHITTY JOBS WELL.

It's a HUGE truth that is really important for doing well in this world, and as Louis points out, there are those who don't get it.

Nope, just tried again now. I get the ad at the beginning, then nothing else.

Who knows, maybe it's firefox, maybe it's my ISP, maybe it just hates me personally, who knows.