Leeroy Jenkins First Take, Dec 22 Hotfixes, Tweets, WoW History, HotS - New Hero

Originally Posted by Kellorion

How is it symbolic? o.0 Or was that sarcasm.
It not like they reshot it and when Leeroy goes to zerg, he lags out and a buffering symbol comes on.

It was sarcasm, I have no idea what this has to do with net neutrality.

Oh GREAT!
I guess someone is also gonna tell me that Alamo the durid doesn't really talk like that????

You see...

the guild PALS for Life represents the internet.

Leeroy represents you, the end-user

The rookery whelps represent favorite website. I.E. MMO-Champion. or E621. (hey im not gonna judge...)

and the camera man clicking whelp eggs and aggroing everything represents your desire to go check out that new comic you like with the girl that looks like a Lugia. Which reminds me...

Uhh... what were we talking about again?

Mtmtmtmtmt

Man, wtf did we do before this was a "non issue" the past 2 years? Time to prepare to go back to those hard times!

Blizzard, take my Leeroy title and achievement away. I cannot live with this...

Originally Posted by Lionhearte0

People here actually bought into the Net Neutrality meme? LMAO. Well, of course you all did.

Let me guess, you saw a funny yet informative video from a late-night talk show paid for be corporations and mega-monopolies designed to convince you that the other monopolies were the bad guys, is that right? Let's educate you all on something.

First of all, ISPs are ALREADY ALLOWED to bundle/throttle websites right now, just as long as they don't claim to be neutral. It's literally already been like that according to the FCC's own 'net neutrality' rules put in place awhile back.



But seriously, why not just read the whole statement by Ajit Pai himself first?

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...C-347980A1.pdf

And further, here are some assurances given by the FCC:

https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rel...C-347927A1.pdf


Specifically, here, on page 83:


On page 82:


And by the way, in case you didn't know, we have a little thing called ANTITRUST LAWS:



So put down your goddamn pitchforks and stop acting like the fucking world is ending every fucking day. Seriously, grow the fuck up.


FAQ:

"B-BUT AJIT PAI IS JUST A STUPID TRUMP SHILL!!!! THAT MEANS HE'S BAD RIGHT??"[

Actually, Ajit Pai was appointed by one President Barack Obama in 2012.

That must mean he's a good guy based on your "logic", right?

Your post is so full of egregious lies and half truths it's difficult to know where to start, and it's Christmas so I don't really want to waste time with your BS, but I'll point out 3 things:
1) The document you highlighted as some kind of evidence refers to ISPs who explicitly present themselves as restricting content. E.g. I am an ISP that doesn't allow any access to porn sites because we only offer a family friendly service. Curated is not the same as throttled, unless you're expecting that ISPS after the death of NN will explicitly say "If you sign up to us, you won't have access to Netflix or Facebook".
2) If your best bet is 'ISPs have given an undertaking that they won't throttle traffic' you're either gullible or dumb. Ask yourself this question - if ISPs have no intention of throttling traffic, why have they spent hundreds of millions lobbying to revoke chapter 2 status? You don't spend millions on something if you don't plan on sneakily introducing it once the public's gaze is elsewhere.
3) The biggest and stupidest lie in your post is the 'muh, Obama appointed Pai' BS. Pai's post on the FCC was a Republican seat- Obama didn't choose Pai, he was chosen by Mitch McConnell, who gave his name to Obama, who in turn nominated him. That's how nominations work when you have seats allocated for different parties - suggesting that Pai is somehow Obama's homey is total garbage - he's a Republican shill.

But yeah, you go ahead and convince yourself that multinational corporations have our best interests at heart because they tell us they do - that's always worked in the past, and no corporation has ever screwed over a member of the public in pursuit of profit, right?

Originally Posted by gilfanon

Your post is so full of egregious lies and half truths it's difficult to know where to start, and it's Christmas so I don't really want to waste time with your BS, but I'll point out 3 things:
1) The document you highlighted as some kind of evidence refers to ISPs who explicitly present themselves as restricting content. E.g. I am an ISP that doesn't allow any access to porn sites because we only offer a family friendly service. Curated is not the same as throttled, unless you're expecting that ISPS after the death of NN will explicitly say "If you sign up to us, you won't have access to Netflix or Facebook".
2) If your best bet is 'ISPs have given an undertaking that they won't throttle traffic' you're either gullible or dumb. Ask yourself this question - if ISPs have no intention of throttling traffic, why have they spent hundreds of millions lobbying to revoke chapter 2 status? You don't spend millions on something if you don't plan on sneakily introducing it once the public's gaze is elsewhere.
3) The biggest and stupidest lie in your post is the 'muh, Obama appointed Pai' BS. Pai's post on the FCC was a Republican seat- Obama didn't choose Pai, he was chosen by Mitch McConnell, who gave his name to Obama, who in turn nominated him. That's how nominations work when you have seats allocated for different parties - suggesting that Pai is somehow Obama's homey is total garbage - he's a Republican shill.

But yeah, you go ahead and convince yourself that multinational corporations have our best interests at heart because they tell us they do - that's always worked in the past, and no corporation has ever screwed over a member of the public in pursuit of profit, right?

1) Learn to read. "It would also be true of an ISP that engages in other forms of editorial intervention, such as throttling of certain applications chosen by the ISP, or filtering of content into fast (and slow) lanes based on the ISP's commercial interests."

2) I assume you meant Title II, not "chapter 2" (whose calling who dumb, again?). Title II is a piece of shit. On pg 43 of the Communications Act of 1934, it states:

SEC. 214. [47 U.S.C. 214] EXTENSION OF LINES.

(a) No carrier shall undertake the construction of a new line or of an extension of any line, or shall acquire or operate any line, or extension thereof, or shall engage in transmission over or by means of such additional or extended line, unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require the construction, or operation, or construction and operation, of such additional or extended line ...

Yes. Because that's just what we need, to kill competition and create a literal monopoly for the same companies you so despise that want this revoked. You sure are a smart one, huh?

3) The fact you fell for the bait of my final point shows you really are a gullible one considering the point of it was to mock the """logic""" of some of you people for automagically branding someone as evil because there's an R next to their name or something or whatever your logic is, who knows anymore.

Either way, if you don't understand how data is transmitted or how bandwidth shaping is used then you aren't exactly allowed to have an opinion in the first place. This is just to let you (and others) know your opinion is stupid and doesn't matter. Reading some sensationalist article from the corporate media doesn't mean you have an opinion, it means you're stupid. Because hint: all those sensationalist claims you all have been making are something that ANTITRUST LAWS would deal with should they actually happen (y'all actually think they're going to start putting the net into little packages like Portugal has? LMAO. PORTUGAL DOESN'T HAVE ANTITRUST LAWS.

Anyways, bandwidth shaping is already in place, it always has been, and it's a complex matter that requires lots of computers to sort the data and keep it going right very fast. if we didn't have bandwidth shaping the internet would be a fraction of the speed it is today because data would not be prioritized in an efficient way to make optimum use of data transmission speeds through-out the internet.

The best visual aid I can think of is that if the internet was a 6 lane highway, you have everyone driving regular cars, businesses driving semi trucks, and media corporations driving a barge with wheels on it that takes up 3 or 4 lanes at a time. There are enough of these barges to make up about 80% of all internet traffic.

You wind up with network congestion, traffic jams - sub-optimal performance. Planned data shaping means these dudes driving the huge barges get special lanes made that they pay to use so that their massive needs aren't interfering with us and less traffic jams happen. It also allows extra money for network infrastructure upgrades but the bosses will probably just spend the profit on bonuses.

Sounds really scary right? YouTube and Facebook and porn sites just don't want to pay for all the network they use, which is like 80% of the internet traffic. It wont raise costs for YOU since you aren't using the data. THEY are sending the data to you.

This is why your download speed is always much faster than your upload speed - because YOU aren't the one sending the traffic through the internet, its whatever site you access.

So, again, any idiots pretending you are going to have to buy access packages are pretending the real internet is the same as cheapo cellular prepaid plans that do media bundles. Trust me, they will move you away from unlimited broadband long before they start charging you for access packages.

Final point: The internet wasn't worse 3 years ago before we had it.
If anything there is more censorship now than there was then so "freedom of speech" (or in this case "keep the internet open and free!" is a moot point.

But hey, you give it a nice shot, but a little advice? Don't give your opinion on things you clearly know nothing about.

That goes for you and the other ~76% of the population.

edit: Almost forgot:

Merry Christmas!

Originally Posted by Lionhearte0

Merry Christmas!

Happy christmas to you too, try to not take yourself too seriously.

Originally Posted by Lionhearte0

1) Learn to read. "It would also be true of an ISP that engages in other forms of editorial intervention, such as throttling of certain applications chosen by the ISP, or filtering of content into fast (and slow) lanes based on the ISP's commercial interests."

2) I assume you meant Title II, not "chapter 2" (whose calling who dumb, again?). Title II is a piece of shit. On pg 43 of the Communications Act of 1934, it states:



Yes. Because that's just what we need, to kill competition and create a literal monopoly for the same companies you so despise that want this revoked. You sure are a smart one, huh?

3) The fact you fell for the bait of my final point shows you really are a gullible one considering the point of it was to mock the """logic""" of some of you people for automagically branding someone as evil because there's an R next to their name or something or whatever your logic is, who knows anymore.

Either way, if you don't understand how data is transmitted or how bandwidth shaping is used then you aren't exactly allowed to have an opinion in the first place. This is just to let you (and others) know your opinion is stupid and doesn't matter. Reading some sensationalist article from the corporate media doesn't mean you have an opinion, it means you're stupid. Because hint: all those sensationalist claims you all have been making are something that ANTITRUST LAWS would deal with should they actually happen (y'all actually think they're going to start putting the net into little packages like Portugal has? LMAO. PORTUGAL DOESN'T HAVE ANTITRUST LAWS.

Anyways, bandwidth shaping is already in place, it always has been, and it's a complex matter that requires lots of computers to sort the data and keep it going right very fast. if we didn't have bandwidth shaping the internet would be a fraction of the speed it is today because data would not be prioritized in an efficient way to make optimum use of data transmission speeds through-out the internet.

The best visual aid I can think of is that if the internet was a 6 lane highway, you have everyone driving regular cars, businesses driving semi trucks, and media corporations driving a barge with wheels on it that takes up 3 or 4 lanes at a time. There are enough of these barges to make up about 80% of all internet traffic.

You wind up with network congestion, traffic jams - sub-optimal performance. Planned data shaping means these dudes driving the huge barges get special lanes made that they pay to use so that their massive needs aren't interfering with us and less traffic jams happen. It also allows extra money for network infrastructure upgrades but the bosses will probably just spend the profit on bonuses.

Sounds really scary right? YouTube and Facebook and porn sites just don't want to pay for all the network they use, which is like 80% of the internet traffic. It wont raise costs for YOU since you aren't using the data. THEY are sending the data to you.

This is why your download speed is always much faster than your upload speed - because YOU aren't the one sending the traffic through the internet, its whatever site you access.

So, again, any idiots pretending you are going to have to buy access packages are pretending the real internet is the same as cheapo cellular prepaid plans that do media bundles. Trust me, they will move you away from unlimited broadband long before they start charging you for access packages.

Final point: The internet wasn't worse 3 years ago before we had it.
If anything there is more censorship now than there was then so "freedom of speech" (or in this case "keep the internet open and free!" is a moot point.

But hey, you give it a nice shot, but a little advice? Don't give your opinion on things you clearly know nothing about.

That goes for you and the other ~76% of the population.

edit: Almost forgot:

Merry Christmas!

Could you just do yourself a favor and stop. Your posts are laughable. Happy Holidays.

Most of websites and organisations claiming net neutrality have already lost neutrality.

Originally Posted by KefoAtleta

So the famous leeroy video was staged?... wow

I'm surprised so many people ever thought it was real.

Damn it broke my heart... Leeroy, I trusted you...