Showing posts with label Fungonecrazy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fungonecrazy. Show all posts
Friday, December 17, 2010
Friday, November 14, 2008
Fung with an Amstel Light...yeah, dude, sure we believe it was Photoshopped...
Eagles rookie Jack Ikegwuonu was identified in a photo on Facebook with what appears to be a "bong" and other possible drug-related items. The photo has since been removed from Facebook, but Profootballtalk has it. Ikegwuonu, who is spending his rookie year on IR, also appears to have a straw and white powder is visible on a glass table in front of him. The photo was on Ikewguonu's sister's Facebook page. She says she Photoshopped it.
~
~
Friday, September 26, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
What hope is there for drunks like K-Mad & Smiff when an alleged teetotaler like Fung is pounding the beers like this?
(Ok, Stella really isn't a beer, but you know what i mean.)
Friday, August 1, 2008
Help, Legal Expert
FCC formally rules Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent was illegal
Federal regulators voted 3-2 on Friday to declare that Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent traffic last year was unlawful, marking the first time that any U.S. broadband provider has ever been found to violate Net neutrality rules.
Apparently Comcast was mad at all those people who were sharing all those huge music and video files with a million of their closest friends using peer to peer software that can't be shut down as easily as Napster does. These people use way more of the internet than you or I updating this blog, yet they pay the same amount every month. "Excessive", Comcast called it, without defining what that meant. So Comcast had to either put in a whole lot more bandwidth, or make everyone suffer for these "file sharers", who are probably sharing files illegally anyway. They came up with a third option - slow down the file sharers while keeping "regular" traffic untouched. Which, I suppose may be a good way to do it, AS LONG AS YOU TELL US YOU'RE DOING IT BEFORE WE SIGN THE DOTTED LINE!
Net neutrality says that people should be able to use any application over the internet. Which is fine, I agree with that. However, these applications start to cause problems when they use up a whole lot of bandwidth. Because someone is sharing files, viewing videos etc. either my internet slows down or I have to pay more because my ISP has to invest more to increase bandwidth. Is that fair? Well, probably not. But we have the same problem with public goods, like the roads, or public transit, the police - I'm guessing on some of those you come out ahead, on others you don't. Overall you might even out. So I suppose I should be all for paying more if it means that I'll be able to use whatever application or device that may be invented in the future.
So, Comcast was trying to make a particular application unusable, because it (probably) cut into their profits, and so it was found illegal. However...
It (also) is likely to be challenged in court. In 2006, Congress rejected five different bills that would have handed the FCC the power to police Net neutrality violations; the FCC has acknowledged that its own Net neutrality principles "are not enforceable"; the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the FCC has no power to regulate "unless and until Congress confers power upon it."
So they made a ruling, but it is unenforceable. So why make it? How can Comcast violate rules that don't really exist yet?
In the meantime, I believe Comcast is coming up with a limit of traffic every month, above which their users would be charged for excessive traffic. The problem is that in most cases, Comcast is a monopoly. We need competition. We need to start our own ISP. Who's with me?
Federal regulators voted 3-2 on Friday to declare that Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent traffic last year was unlawful, marking the first time that any U.S. broadband provider has ever been found to violate Net neutrality rules.
Apparently Comcast was mad at all those people who were sharing all those huge music and video files with a million of their closest friends using peer to peer software that can't be shut down as easily as Napster does. These people use way more of the internet than you or I updating this blog, yet they pay the same amount every month. "Excessive", Comcast called it, without defining what that meant. So Comcast had to either put in a whole lot more bandwidth, or make everyone suffer for these "file sharers", who are probably sharing files illegally anyway. They came up with a third option - slow down the file sharers while keeping "regular" traffic untouched. Which, I suppose may be a good way to do it, AS LONG AS YOU TELL US YOU'RE DOING IT BEFORE WE SIGN THE DOTTED LINE!
Net neutrality says that people should be able to use any application over the internet. Which is fine, I agree with that. However, these applications start to cause problems when they use up a whole lot of bandwidth. Because someone is sharing files, viewing videos etc. either my internet slows down or I have to pay more because my ISP has to invest more to increase bandwidth. Is that fair? Well, probably not. But we have the same problem with public goods, like the roads, or public transit, the police - I'm guessing on some of those you come out ahead, on others you don't. Overall you might even out. So I suppose I should be all for paying more if it means that I'll be able to use whatever application or device that may be invented in the future.
So, Comcast was trying to make a particular application unusable, because it (probably) cut into their profits, and so it was found illegal. However...
It (also) is likely to be challenged in court. In 2006, Congress rejected five different bills that would have handed the FCC the power to police Net neutrality violations; the FCC has acknowledged that its own Net neutrality principles "are not enforceable"; the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the FCC has no power to regulate "unless and until Congress confers power upon it."
So they made a ruling, but it is unenforceable. So why make it? How can Comcast violate rules that don't really exist yet?
In the meantime, I believe Comcast is coming up with a limit of traffic every month, above which their users would be charged for excessive traffic. The problem is that in most cases, Comcast is a monopoly. We need competition. We need to start our own ISP. Who's with me?
Friday, May 23, 2008
Fung has wi-fi on his laptop!
But lord knows how much he'll get to use it this weekend. It's gonna take forever to get thru all the stuff you've typed up. But let me see if I get the gist: McBush is a flip flopper, Hillary comparing an election here to Zimbabwe (?) and you guys found some site that exposes the acronyms hidden in your names. Mebbe I haven't missed that much after all...
By the way, Fungster's now in Western Europe, where there's a divide between the shower and the rest of the bathroom, just like in the good ol' USA. They used to use these strange currencies called Francs, Guilders, Marks. Now it's all Euro. And I have my first wad of Euros. Well, second wad, I changed money on the flight to Bulgaria, but Briggs basically held onto that most of the time. This wad's all mine!
Oh well, better get out on the town and check things out. It's so much different from the last time I was here. This hotel, for example, didn't exist back then. Or at least I'm pretty sure it didn't. Right?
By the way, Fungster's now in Western Europe, where there's a divide between the shower and the rest of the bathroom, just like in the good ol' USA. They used to use these strange currencies called Francs, Guilders, Marks. Now it's all Euro. And I have my first wad of Euros. Well, second wad, I changed money on the flight to Bulgaria, but Briggs basically held onto that most of the time. This wad's all mine!
Oh well, better get out on the town and check things out. It's so much different from the last time I was here. This hotel, for example, didn't exist back then. Or at least I'm pretty sure it didn't. Right?
Monday, May 12, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
LoC slacking off?
The number of posts on the LoC this year averages 36 posts per week, or just over 5 a day. Last year averages 57 posts per day, or more like 8 per day. That's with a couple of really low week numbers in there - only 9 over the Christmas period and 15 way back in June. In fact, since the beginning of December we've been below the 2007 weekly average every week, before we finally managed to tie it last week. So what has happened to the Lattice? Back in the day, late July to early August, we had a chance. A glorious chance to finally top the 100 posts in a week barrier. But we came just 2 short. And it's been downhill ever since. When will we regain the glory of days past? Or are we just inexorably withering towards the eventual demise of this web diary? Let's get back to the glory days. Let's break the 100 posts in a week barrier. Who's with me?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Now dis is a winter, my friends
My friends, we already have the 5th snowiest winter on record, and now tonight we're supposed to have the biggest storm of the season. Dat's what you call winter. These crappy ass "cold only" winters we've been getting have been rather depressing. This one's had everything. Snow. Followed by cold. Followed by snow. Followed by 50 degrees and a meltdown. Followed by snow. Repeat. Ah yes. Smiff, you left a couple of seasons too early.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
