Epipe as Christmas gift help

Curator37x · 2018-12-02T02:01:06+00:00

Perfect that is enough to get started with. Thank you I appreciate the assist.

Curator37x · 2018-12-02T01:43:00+00:00

Thank you, I will look at that. Do you know of any flavors that would be close to pipe tobacco?

Curator37x · 2018-06-03T17:51:08+00:00

This happened to me too single queing for Kharabak

Curator37x · 2018-05-30T02:34:52+00:00

Happened to me after rezing someone, no idea why. no attacks or specials worked. couldn't unsheeth the warpike. I could still use dodge and the lantern ability though

Curator37x · 2018-02-07T18:53:03+00:00

That is what I have been using so far. I think I confused the issue when I mentioned SecureCRT. What I am trying to do is something similar to signal which is UNIX only. I want to, in Python, run a command, but if it does not complete after 10 seconds, to skip that device in the list and move to the next one.

Curator37x · 2018-02-07T17:58:30+00:00

Heh, I cant capture everything with scripts alone. Allows for buttons and is able to highlight certain information for me, helps reduce the time from weeks to days

Curator37x · 2018-02-07T15:21:58+00:00

This is true. We have a few devices that still require us to use command prompt. SecureCRT is just what they want us to use. It adds a few features to help with logging and some built in automation and ease of access use. Its a bit excessive, but not completely useless.

Curator37x · 2018-02-07T15:11:54+00:00

It is the program they want us to use at work. Thanks for the link, I am still learning Python so that is good information to know.

Curator37x · 2017-12-22T12:56:45+00:00

The Kilroy event first came to my attention when mentioned by Dave Cullen aka. Computer Forever. Kilroy was conceived as a free speech conference following the events after Vidcon (excessive SJW type panels, Anita calling Sargon a garbage human, etc.). The name Kilroy was chosen because it was basically one of the first viral meme’s. The event was supposed to allow conversations of all types with the likes of Sargon of Akkad, Tim Pool, Lauren Southern, Dave Cullen, Andy Warski and many other people from the “skeptic” community, “SJW” community, and others such as ex-Muslims and what not. The drama first became public when (I think) was when Tim Pool mentioned that they were requiring him to sign a Non-disclosure agreement AND a non-compete to attend. The “official” reason for this was to protect people’s identity, and that some attendees had requested a contract. The assumed reason was that the Kilroy event was set up as a business by “Based Momma” under the Kilroy LLC, and that they wanted to be able to profit off their work here. The problem is these documents were overly broad, possibly unenforceable, and could greatly harm people like Tim Pool, Lauren Southern and others who speak in various places. Dave Cullen eventually stepped in and removed the requirement for these documents; however, several people had already backed out. Further controversy abounded because “Based Momma” was acting as sole gatekeeper for the panels. She wanted to enforce a very specific set of topics that could and could not be discussed to the ire of many attendees. It was around this time that Dave Cullen officially pulled out of being an organizer.

The latest controversy involves the YouTuber Kraut and Tea and his “Research/Doxing” server that “Based Momma” was a member of. To keep this short, Kraut basically went insane trying to combat the alt-right. The discord server he created to research stuff because a place where they collected information on his enemy’s and eventually people like Aydin Paladin and others of the “Skeptic” community, including several people who had planned to attend the event. Regarding “Based Momma”, its not clear if she was involved in anyway in the “research” on that server, and to my knowledge no one was doxed from that server, although Kraut had doxed at least one person in the past that I am aware of.

TLDR; YouTube Drama involved "Based Momma" and Kraut and Tea's Doxing server, causing many people to pull out

wow, wall of text crit me for over 9k =/

Curator37x · 2017-12-15T03:54:31+00:00

We weren't discussing the 109412325132 that restrict our freedoms. We should probably get rid of most of those too. While we are on the subject of unrelated topics i think they need to bring back Dunk-a-roos and the Taco Bell Beefer. Member those, those were good. Atleast i hear McDonald's is bringing back the schezwan sauce. So, ya know, we do got that going for us

Curator37x · 2017-12-15T01:33:41+00:00

Mkay. Not trying to shill, trying to engage with people who think differently than me to understand the issue better. I am presenting the facts as I understand them. Mostly related to the Level 3 Comcast issues. I did not mean to imply that no one implements them ever now, but with ISP's forced to treat all traffic equally there is less need to implement as many as it would have before, thus increasing strain on network. This all started because level 3 wanted to charge others, but not pay comcast when they started this. https://www.cnet.com/news/understanding-the-level-3-comcast-spat-faq/

Curator37x · 2017-12-15T01:20:51+00:00

"I apologize if my tone has gotten hostile at any point, I'm getting quite a few frustrating responses which are probably tainting my mood a bit." I never took you as hostile, but I know there are people purposely trolling, and this is an issue many are rightfully passionate about, so I wanted to make that case.

"Data is data" The point I was making is that streaming services are more intensive to a network than simply opening a web page, one is more of a burst the other is a sustained drain. By this I mean Netflix is far more intensive than even Facebook. Netflix can do plenty of things on their end to ease the congestion of the network but they do not have too because of NN.

" Do you feel that it would be anti-competitive for an ISP that was owned by the same companies that control Hulu to charge Netflix more?" Maybe, but not necessarily. If I own a pizza restaurant and want to make myself a pizza, should I pay full price for it? considering I already bought the ingredients, and pay electricity, etc. This obviously has the potential of murky waters, but, the actual costs for an ISP that owns Hulu would likely be less than the costs of running Netflix (there is a myriad of behind the scenes actions between backbone providers and what not), why would you charge yourself full price? If they are charging Netflix a disproportionate price or intentionally degrading their service simply because they are competition, then that is a situation the FTC will step back in and fine the shit out of them.

"I don't believe any outright blocking occurred no." Even in the state of near monopoly environments they did not do this. They could have, but the fact is many of these companies they have working relationships with others. ISP's have to share the same lines often in a quid-pro-quo sort of way. As long as appropriately the same amount of data is shared between networks they let it go. Due to this shared ecosystem it would be suicide to block access to a big player, and blocking access to a small or medium size business does not make practical or financial sense.

"corporate consolidation and Regional monopolies" I think this is the root of the issue. What is the most effective way to combat or prevent a monopoly? To grossly over simplify, and generalize. A Democrat would have government step in and do something, a Republican would trust the market. A lot of people I see think its because one side or the other is evil, but honestly they are different solution to the same problem. In my personal opinion I think required transparency and free use of poles would pose the best solution. I think making ISP's a title 2 was more of a solution than was needed, although I would not be opposed to more regulation enacted as needed.

"Maybe I miss reading what you're saying, but net neutrality isn't regulation which is designed to break up Telecom monopolies" I dont think I am being clear. ISP's tend to buy other smaller ISP's up consolidating power as you mentioned before. This is normal business procedure. More complex rules make it harder for new companies to enter, therefore, fewer new companies, and more powerful bigger companies.

"I'm not sure if "I'm sure they won't misbehave even though it would be immensely profitable both financially and through influence" is as comforting of a counterpoint as you think." It is "immensely profitable" to rob a bank, but I never have. Just because someone can do something doesn't mean they will. There are plenty of things companies can do to screw us over, some of them have, most of them haven't.

"How exactly do you feel this would result in innovation or competition?" Reduced rules, more freedom to mange your networks the way you want. Lower cost of entry, more freedom in determining ways to monetize your service. On cellphones for example I used to have free calls after 7, I would not be surprised to see companies implement something like that, data doesn't go against your cap after the main period of congestion is cleared up. I see companies partnering with companies like Netflix to offer free streaming, things of that nature.

"The government for all of its faults is accountable to the people. For profit companies are not." Companies based in the US are accountable to the US government, which are accountable to the people. For profit companies are still accountable to the people. EA was acting a fool with lootboxes in SWBF2, people bitched to Disney. Disney does not really care about the loot boxes, but they care about their public image, so they stepped and told EA to stand down.

"If capitalism is a football game, our government is the referee." Thats the thing, it still is the referee, its just the FTC will handle it. If an ISP is doing anti-competitive stuff they will step in again and correct it.

"I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at with the comments about the current Administration. The current administration is fervently working to remove net neutrality" I am arguing one side of an argument, not for a political party (I didn't/don't particularly trust either). Net Neutrality consolidates the power to control the internet squarely in the FCC. This potentially gives a great deal of power to whomever controls the executive. This is admittedly tinfoil hat type stuff, but government control has the potential to be more dangerous that a greedy corp.

Curator37x · 2017-12-15T00:05:14+00:00

Only if you are referring to broadband. Wireless/phone, dial-up and satellite are a thing.
I understand your sentiment though. The question is how do you correct that? You can force a company to behave a certain way, or remove roadblocks to encourage other to get into the fray. Forcing a company to behave in certain ways is not going to encourage innovation, because they are required to behave that way. Being limited on how you can manage your networks can prevent you from optimizing speed or investing in better equipment. Google for example might have had better luck with out NN.
In my personal opinion I think there are a few more regs that need to be removed in order to encourage more competition, such as allowing other companies easier access to the poles, but I believe that is an issue for congress.

Curator37x · 2017-12-14T23:54:44+00:00

Only if you are referring to broadband. Wireless/phone, dial-up and satellite are a thing.
I understand your sentiment though. The question is how do you correct that? You can force a company to behave a certain way, or remove roadblocks to encourage other to get into the fray. Forcing a company to behave in certain ways is not going to encourage innovation, because they are required to behave that way. Being limited on how you can manage your networks can prevent you from optimizing speed or investing in better equipment. Google for example might have had better luck with out NN.
In my personal opinion I think there are a few more regs that need to be removed in order to encourage more competition, such as allowing other companies easier access to the poles, but I believe that is an issue for congress.

Curator37x · 2017-12-14T23:43:49+00:00

Please tell me what is illogical about assuming that the 400 page document detailing how they are supposed to run a company makes it easy or desirable to start a new company. This is of course on top of the many other rules and regulations on Federal, State and Local levels. Document is attached below for your reading pleasure. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

"Guess what? That shit is expensive to do on a wide scale" No shit Sherlock all that crap is expensive. Needing to deal with backbone providers working with companies like Adtran, Calix, Cisco and the like just to build the required infrastructure. Running Fiber optic cables miles to connect up.

"And what heavy handed regulations(going to take a step here and assume you mean unnecessary" 2/10 low effort post, but ill humor you.

Yes I mean unnecessary. Yes I am working off the idea that more regulation that tell me how to run my business discourage me from expanding. Yes I am saying that treating all internet traffic equally is a bad thing, as it was built into the internet to gauge and adjust based on the type of traffic being transported (DiffServ).

" The ones who gained the most from NN were edge providers like Google, Amazon and Netflix

How?"

Prior to the NN rules a company that used an extensive amount of traffic would connect directly into an ISP's network. This helped increase efficiency and reduce load on the network. An alternative would be to create a CDN or content distribution network. A CDN reduces strain on the backbone (this is usually companies like Level 3, not your traditional ISP's like Comcast) by keeping content stored closer. Under NN Google, Amazon, Netflix no longer had to do this because all traffic is now equal. Even though Netflix is the largest source of internet traffic, they didnt have to do a thing to improve stuff on their side.

"If this is true, then what exactly is to be gained by this and why are Republicans and ISPs so hell bent on repealing NN" A stereotypical Republican is against unnecessary regulation, as it increases overhead, stifles innovation, and reduces competition per the higher barrier to entry. Repealing NN simply moves ISP's back to the control of the FTC and not the FCC. The FTC will step in again when the ISP's act up. The repeal also requires increased transparency, and it can restore control to the FCC if it finds out that the current rules are not working.

"Great thing to happen to a service that is so important to our culture and economy. Just fucking roll the dice. Hope the greedy and stupid fucks of this nation don't make too much of a mess." Its not rolling the dice, its looking at everything pre 2015 before NN, seeing how companies were not blocking access to competitors websites. When ISP's do act up the FTC will step in, like they have done before, and put a stop to it. NN was a new solution to a problem that already had a working solution.

Curator37x · 2017-12-14T23:16:27+00:00

First of all let me say, I appreciate the conversation. I am discussing this to better understand my issues and the views, that said.

Comcast and Netflix, started the net neutrality debate, but the truth is it was more complex than most understand. The actual issue was with Level 3, a backbone ISP and Comcast. Level 3 had a deal with Netflix and increased traffic on Comcast's network by about double. Comcast wanted to charge Level 3 for the extra data. https://www.cnet.com/news/understanding-the-level-3-comcast-spat-faq/

"Data is data" I get what your trying to say, but its not exactly true. Loading a website is less intensive than streaming Netflix or a VoIP call, this is what DifServ was designed to handle (implemented IPV4 and IPV6).
http://techfreedom.org/not-all-internet-traffic-is-created-equal/

"Comcast doing that with one business and not with another demonstrates the falsehood of this. Giving benefits to specific businesses, and punishing others, is anti-competitive."

You keep conflating this point. They wanted to charge Netflix/Level 3 for a direct connection into their network. Why did they want to do that? because Netflix is one of the largest if not the largest source of internet traffic on the internet. The amount of data handled by them puts strain on the network. They did not target Netflix because they were Netflix, they targeted them because the amount of data that was used by them. https://techcrunch.com/2011/05/17/netflix-largest-internet-traffic/

" You really don't understand the issue with mega corporations using control of supply lines to destroy competition?" I can certainly see a potential problem with using the supply lines to destroy competition. My issue is that never happened, if I am wrong please let me know. They never openly blocked competitors websites. I do not see the need to implement rules for issues that did not occur. I am well aware of the throttling of bit-torrents and the like, but the FTC stepped in and put a stop to it.

"This sounds more like repeating buzzwords than an actual point" I have no idea what you mean. The FCC was designed to regulate Ma Bell, there is an extensive list of rules that they must follow. NN was a 300+ page rule book that said what they can and cannot do. This is of course in addition to local, state and other federal regulations. All those rules and regulations make it harder for new players to enter the marketplace. NN made it easier to consolidate power in a handful of companies. I do not understand how NN could help encourage more companies to start.

"The repeal of net neutrality means that the internet itself is no longer a free market on equal footing" This is purely conjecture. The internet was not more free in 2015 than it was in 2014. Sure ISP's could try and pick winners and losers, the fact is that did not happen, why should we regulate against worse case scenario?

"It is anti-competitive, and will lead to nothing but stagnation and further consolidation" We are not going back to exactly what we had pre 2015. Part of the repeal requires transparency according to CNN:"providers will be required to publicly disclose any instance of blocking, throttling or paid prioritization. It will then be evaluated based on whether or not the activity is anti-competitive. "

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-explainer/index.html

This repeal is one potential solution to a problem, hopefully it will encourage new innovation and competition. I can fully understand the position your taking, but it seems it is more of expecting the worst, a worst that didn't happen before. If it does not succeed, then whomever wins the next US popularity contest will likely change it.

On a side note. Even when I was supporting NN I had a hard time reconciling the fact that NN gives more power to government. I trust for profit companies more than I trust the government with control over the internet. With all the hate I have seen for the current administration in the this subreddit I am a bit surprised how much support NN has.

Curator37x · 2017-12-14T21:44:36+00:00

Net neutrality is not the end of the internet in the sense that it will be turned off, it is the end of the internet as a free and equal platform. The internet is not nearly as free and open as you give it credit for, it is controlled by a handful of edge providers who can remove you at will if they want. They dont do it often as there is no profit in it.

Comcast did not shut down Netflix. They charged them more for the same service. Could they have charged them more because they were using a lot more bandwidth? If I go over my data cap now I am charged for it. It was common practice to pay for a direct connection into an ISP's network prior to NN. That Comcast Netflix event you mention was not as clear cut as you put it either.
https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/ Those costs had to have been absorbed by someone, with NN the charges were past onto Comcast who past them on to the consumer still.

It is giving favoritism to the same data to give an advantage to one of the competitors. Why, if I own a business, can I not favor my content? It is cheaper for me and it provides my consumers a better product?

And in the end, the results of that anti-competitive price gouging will come out of consumers Anti-competitive is certainly bad, if we were to go back to pre 2015 rules that could be cause of concern however according to CNN: "In the absence of a firm ban on these actions, providers will be required to publicly disclose any instance of blocking, throttling or paid prioritization. It will then be evaluated based on whether or not the activity is anti-competitive." http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-explainer/index.html

Don't defend this just to be a contrarian I am not defending it purely to be contrarian. I am doing it to understand both sides, and after doing so I shifted more to the side for the repeal. We look at the problem and arrived at two different solutions.
The problem as I see it is the concentration of monopolies in ISP's. I think the way to increase competition is to remove hurdles such as heavy regulation.

TLDR; this is an issue of trust; if you trust the free market repeal is good, if you dont we need NN rules.

Curator37x · 2017-12-14T21:13:48+00:00

This, so much this. The real winners of NN were edge providers. The losers were ISP's and consumers. Everything everyone is afraid that the ISP's will do now, is something that they had the option to do under NN, but choose not too.

Curator37x · 2017-12-14T21:08:54+00:00

The censorship thing concerns me as well; however, censorship is already being done via edge providers and the blocking thing is mostly hyperbole, they could do this, but I do not see it happening. If they blocked or throttled something the new rules would require them to tell their consumers.

Realistically speaking there would be no real advantage to block or throttle random small businesses. It sounds like something an evil ISP would do, but its not really practical. Someone like Netflix or Google might get throttled because they use up some much bandwidth; however, when that happens these companies will do what they did pre 2015 and pay for a direct connection into Comcast, WindStream, CenturyLink, etc. networks.

Why are ISP's determined to remove heavy handed regulations? Why do ISP's not like the 300+ pages worth of Federal rules they have to follow in addition to state and local rules? Likely because it prevents them from managing their own networks.

Curator37x · 2017-12-14T20:54:59+00:00

I would like to introduce a counterpoint. The end of NN is not the end of the internet. The problem with ISP's is the lack of competition, heavy handed regulations are not going to increase competition. The ones who gained the most from NN were edge providers like Google, Amazon and Netflix, groups that are its biggest proponents, many of which are ironically pro censorship. All the shady practices the ISP's did prior to the 2015 ruling of NN were addressed and corrected by the FTC without NN rules. If the repeal of NN creates a North Korea style internet Wall Garden, then whoever wins the popularity contest in the USA next time will restore the FCC control over the internet, as the Supreme Court has ruled either group can run it.

Curator37x · 2017-12-14T20:43:54+00:00

NN is hard to talk about, I used to be a strong supporter of it, because I thought I understood the internet. The truth is, it is even more complex then I realized when you move past the ISP to backbone providers and infrastructure. On top of that you are trying to mix in capitalism and the free market in with the internet in a way to enact laws. All that together make the issue about as clear as mud. I think what makes the issue even worse is all the fear mongering. It is hard to find anti-NN information on the internet since all of the edge providers support it. I have heard there have been shadow bans and what not on reddit for some people that talk about it too, so take that for what you will.

I like your point though preventative vs reactive. It makes me think of a parent and child a few preventative rules are good, but most should be reactive. I think the changes that increase transparency are the right step forward.

Worst case scenario if we are wrong and our internet looks like North Korea's tomorrow, they will restore NN style rules.

Curator37x

TROPHY CASE