[OOC] Myriad Reality

[Source]

Net Neutrality just won.

[DarkwolfX37]

Net Neutrality just won.

@Source

YES!

[Source]

<Snipped quote by Source>

YES!

@DarkwolfX37

ISPs are trying to take it to Congress and the Supreme Court.

[Stabby]

Net Neutrality just won.

@Source

Awesome.

just read the wired article about it.
wired.com/2016/06/net-neutrality-won-b..

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

ISPs are trying to take it to Congress and the Supreme Court.

@Source

Well fuck them.

[Source]

<Snipped quote by Source>

Awesome.

just read the wired article about it.
wired.com/2016/06/net-neutrality-won-b..

@Stabby

It's necessary.

<Snipped quote by Source>

Well fuck them.

@DarkwolfX37

Hey, they're just protecting their rights. To make money. By exploiting consumers.

[Stabby]

i just realized the views of the other side as well.

without the income, they can't employ the people they need to help run the servers, and even without that, if they don't make an income they can't do maintenance on the servers...

i'm seeing both sides and right now i can agree with both. :s
doesn't mean i'm saying that the companies should just scam people, but still...

hmmmmm...

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by Stabby>

It's necessary.

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Hey, they're just protecting their rights. To make money. By exploiting consumers.

@Source

If it gets to the supreme court it'll be the first unanimous decision in a long time. NN will win.

[DarkwolfX37]

i just realized the views of the other side as well.

without the income, they can't employ the people they need to help run the servers, and even without that, if they don't make an income they can't do maintenance on the servers...

i'm seeing both sides and right now i can agree with both. :s
doesn't mean i'm saying that the companies should just scam people, but still...

hmmmmm...

@Stabby

No no no. Look into the prices to service rates of the U.S. compared to other countries. They're already overcharging us, they spend more on lobbying in the government than the FUCKING MILITARY DOES, and they're literally asking for the ability to control the internet itself. Fuck. Them.

[Source]

i just realized the views of the other side as well.

without the income, they can't employ the people they need to help run the servers, and even without that, if they don't make an income they can't do maintenance on the servers...

i'm seeing both sides and right now i can agree with both. :s
doesn't mean i'm saying that the companies should just scam people, but still...

hmmmmm...

@Stabby

This is AT&T, Verizon, and all the big-wigs that we're talking about here. They have literally billions just sitting around, not counting investments. They will never, short of a total crash, ever not be able to employ anyone, especially maintenance people or server engineers. Applying that logic to all companies, it would be okay for your local grocery store to charge through the roof for food, and as long as they keep their employees paid, it's fine. Unless you want to hire more employees or pay the current employees more. But if they pay them more and a basic necessity becomes more expensive, everyone gets paid more and everything gets more expensive, leading to inflation. Or even worse, supply-shock, otherwise known as supply push inflation, causing people to lose jobs and for currency to become devaluated. These companies aren't providing at cost; they have incredibly heavy margins, likely several hundred percent, and they won't need to fire anyone, even if they didn't make a cent for five years. Next thing you know, internet providers and cellphone companies will start charging through the roof for something that, in today's world, is essentially a basic necess—. Oh wait, they already do.

[Source]

<Snipped quote by Source>

If it gets to the supreme court it'll be the first unanimous decision in a long time. NN will win.

@DarkwolfX37

It would also probably be a remarkably fast trial. Unless they manage to bribe off the justices.

[Armed Forces]

Fighting sleep. Dozing off then waking back up at this point. I'm just gonna get some sleep, as I've only gotten about 9ish in the past three days.

[Source]

Fighting sleep. Dozing off then waking back up at this point. I'm just gonna get some sleep, as I've only gotten about 9ish in the past three days.

@Armed Forces

Night. Laters.

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

It would also probably be a remarkably fast trial. Unless they manage to bribe off the justices.

@Source

Which I really hope they can't do. The Supreme Court is like the last bastion of uncorrupted government.

[Source]

<Snipped quote by Source>

Which I really hope they can't do. The Supreme Court is like the last bastion of uncorrupted government.

@DarkwolfX37

I doubt their purity. You'll rarely find any entire group uncorrupted in government.

[Stabby]

<Snipped quote by Stabby>

This is AT&T, Verizon, and all the big-wigs that we're talking about here. They have literally billions just sitting around, not counting investments. They will never, short of a total crash, ever not be able to employ anyone, especially maintenance people or server engineers. Applying that logic to all companies, it would be okay for your local grocery store to charge through the roof for food, and as long as they keep their employees paid, it's fine. Unless you want to hire more employees or pay the current employees more. But if they pay them more and a basic necessity becomes more expensive, everyone gets paid more and everything gets more expensive, leading to inflation. Or even worse, supply-shock, otherwise known as supply push inflation, causing people to lose jobs and for currency to become devaluated. These companies aren't providing at cost; they have incredibly heavy margins, likely several hundred percent, and they won't need to fire anyone, even if they didn't make a cent for five years. Next thing you know, internet providers and cellphone companies will start charging through the roof for something that, in today's world, is essentially a basic necess—. Oh wait, they already do.

@Source

I get that, and frankly anything i say at the moment is just a piece of logic that should be considered, but it shouldn't followed to an extreme.

Some of these stupid big wigs will lay people off just to keep some of their own margins at what they were before because they are so interested in making money. So I'm all for cutting their ridiculous income, but you have to think of the backlash effects that it could and will have at some point.

Plus what i'm saying right now is based off of what i know at this moment and the same goes for you, so there could be information out there that we don't know which could change our view on this whole matter.

What i'm trying to say is that we should do it, but we should be cautious in how we go about doing it.

[Source]

[souleaterfan320]

@Source

Lol.

[Source]

<Snipped quote by Source>

I get that, and frankly anything i say at the moment is just a piece of logic that should be considered, but it shouldn't followed to an extreme.

Some of these stupid big wigs will lay people off just to keep some of their own margins at what they were before because they are so interested in making money. So I'm all for cutting their ridiculous income, but you have to think of the backlash effects that it could and will have at some point.

Plus what i'm saying right now is based off of what i know at this moment and the same goes for you, so there could be information out there that we don't know which could change our view on this whole matter.

What i'm trying to say is that we should do it, but we should be cautious in how we go about doing it.

@Stabby

That's the thing with logic. If it's accurate, it can be followed to any extreme and still hold true.

That risk is run by the company simply being in operation. If they are willing to take such drastic measures, the job isn't stable to begin with and isn't worth the anti-risk.

I'm rather stubborn. My view can only be changed by a logical alteration (such as a situation being a coverup), but because we're arguing out of principle, the chances are near-zero unless you can point out a flaw in the logical reasoning.

I tend to take very run-and-gun positions on things I think are important and deserve it, so I can give you that.

[Stabby]

<Snipped quote by Stabby>

That's the thing with logic. If it's accurate, it can be followed to any extreme and still hold true.

That risk is run by the company simply being in operation. If they are willing to take such drastic measures, the job isn't stable to begin with and isn't worth the anti-risk.

I'm rather stubborn. My view can only be changed by a logical alteration (such as a situation being a coverup), but because we're arguing out of principle, the chances are near-zero unless you can point out a flaw in the logical reasoning.

I tend to take very run-and-gun positions on things I think are important and deserve it, so I can give you that.

@Source

In theory, but there is a limit to how far you can take it without causing problems.

True.

I didn't mean that kind of drastic change. I meant something that would give reasons as to why you shouldn't just knock the problem flat.

Alright.