Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    14247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 12 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    The solutions offered by the Green New Deal ignores human nature. A carbon free world will happen when the technology makes it a cheaper, more efficient and more advantageous way of doing business than it is now. If she said we should put the same effort behind carbon neutral that we did to go to the Moon that’s something that can be put into concrete action potentially without being scoffed at with a 10 year timeline. 

    Kennedy's new speech:

    "We choose [not] to go to the moon in this decade and [not] do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are [not] willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win [lose], and the others, too."

    Very inspiring. 

    • Like 2
  2. 23 minutes ago, Foosters said:

    Please explain how this is the better approach? So in both cases, the world finds out about his dick picks, but in your scenario the blackmail and extortion remains secret. And that's better how?

    It's better for GRHorn's world view. Keeps it nice and tidy, not that he would consider any evidence that contradicts it anyway. 

    • Like 1
  3. 1 hour ago, elfenix said:

    a roku can play files from a NAS, assuming it supports DLNA, and assuming the files are in specific containers (either mkv or mp4) and use specific compressions (h.264/5 for video and aac or ac3/dolby digital for audio.

    https://forums.roku.com/viewtopic.php?t=108522

    plex (which the roku can run as a client) is more flexible but requires some actual horsepower in the server if it needs to transcode the files.

    I still think Plex is the way to go. It isn't clear to me that he already has a NAS system. For the price of procuring one, he could easily setup a true Plex server that will be way more functional on a Roku, and you can even install Plex on many NAS systems if he goes that route. Even a Raspberry Pi 3 has enough horse power for most tasks. Hell, he could probably just set it up on his existing desktop. 

  4. 15 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

    You’re right, the bill says provide “all people” with economic security.  Limiting that to security for those who are unable or unwilling to work was in the overview and FAQ document produced by ACO’s office today to accompany the resolution.  So, if we are parsing, the bill was actually more expansive about providing “economic security”, but just not as in your face about highlighting the “btw, this includes those unwilling to work” part.  

    https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ

    Both the resolution and the accompanying FAQ are just blueprints of what legislation she wants in the future -  the resolution / bill is only generalities right now and nothing approaching a workable finished product even if everyone agreed with the ideas.  So, sloppy reporting aside,  I’m not sure why we would discount the materials she released today to supplement the resolution. 

    It appears she pulled that initial FAQ. It doesn't sound like it was particularly polished. Also, are we really against providing"unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States". Like, that seems like a good thing. Taking umbrage that someone who you dislike may also get a benefit is a bit of cutting off your nose to spite your face, don't you think?

  5. 42 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

    ok, so this is happening, and i have a few questions.

    we're about to get a new living room tv, so the timing works out to finally ditch spectrum (don't get me started).  we're likely going to get roku (we already subscribe to most streaming services) and either directvnow or youtubetv.  based on what we watch, i think directvnow makes more sense at a comparable price.

    here are my questions:

    -the guy at best buy was trying to talk me into a tcl tv with roku built in, because my wife likes the ease, and i like not having to teach her how a bunch of remotes work.  i used to be a samsung snob, but we've had a vizio tv in our living room for years and its been a real champ (it actually still works great, we're moving it into the bedroom).  can anyone report on tcl and is the built in roku worth getting a "lesser" tv?  it'll be bigger than our current living room tv so anything will seem better right now.

    -directv-now vs youtube-tv?  the channel selection seems to favor directvnow, especially with potential add-ons, which we'll likely do.  but is the lack of dvr storage an issue?  we tend to tape a lot of shit and decide whether we're gonna get to it later.  is the on-demand reliable enough to stop taping every-fucking-thing on tv?

    -i like to download a lot of stuff thru torrent sites, and back in our old house, we had a hard drive hooked up to our router and networked everything so that we could access the files through an old xbox.  it was super convenient because i could just download huge files and drop them straight onto that drive.  now i have to either put them on a zip drive and plug that into the tv, or plug my laptop into the tv via hdmi- neither of which is ideal.  if i get a new hard drive to try to replicate the old system, will my tv or roku be able to access this without much setup or know-how?  i don't mind plugging the drive into the router or even into the tv if i have to.

    -since we're cutting the cord, we'll need a solution in the bedroom as well, so we'll likely get another roku in there.  i know there are some different versions, but will the most basic one do what we need it to in there?  what is the difference in the super cheap version and the deluxe?  i haven't done much roku research, which honestly is part of the reason i'm considering the tcl.  we're gonna end up saving money on this, but i don't want the ease of access to go away, which is my biggest fear.

     

    also for any of you assholes shitting on a home line.  we have one because we live in the hills and cell service is shitty.  i also work primarily from home so need a dedicated landline, and sometimes it's nice for not everyone to have access to my mobile number.  only close friends or our parents use it outside of work calls, and when bundled, is pretty inexpensive.  i've never heard of obitalk - but i like the idea of completely free home phone service.  is this something i should be looking into?

    Don't buy a TCL tv for the Roku. Buy the TV you actually want. That may be a TCL as they can be a good value buy, but there is no reason to strap yourself to an inferior TV if you don't have to. Go to Rtings.com to help make your decision. 

    The Roku Stream Stick+ is very nice and can be had for $60 (that is what I bought it for at Microcenter).  It has 4k, hdr, a remote, and an enhanced wifi receiver. The next model, the Roku Ultra, has a headphone jack, which some people really like. Not worth the $30 bucks for me.  Oh, and the remote can control your TV too (or at least things like volume and power). You don't really need much else at that point because you'll be starting on the Roku screen everytime. 

    I like youtube tv. Do the free the trials and see what works best for you. 

    As for the hard-drive, it is going to have to be hooked up to a computer somewhere in order to be networked. You can setup a plex server to distribute whatever you put on there. And you can install the Plex app on your Roku to access it. It isn't complicated, but it isn't quite as easy as you made it sound. 

     

  6. 6 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

    Y'all do understand that legislators all the time will put forward legislation that isn't completely filled with details to try and start a process. She was interviewed this morning on NPR by Steve Inskeep who asked specifically about this, her reasoning is that this is going to have to go through a ton of committee reviews if it moves forward and putting any teeth in implementation details would almost assuredly get stripped away in various meetings. I do agree that 10 years seems almost unrealistic, but I'm so sick and damn tired of hearing about how we can't pay for things when something like the F-35 program has cost over 1.5 trillion dollars thus far. The majority of Americans feel that climate change will cause harm to the US and the rest of the world.

    Right, it isn't even supposed to be legislation. It is the promise to try and make the legislation. 

  7. 27 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aoc-green-new-deal-promises-economic-security-for-those-unable-or-unwilling-to-work/amp/

    National Review highlighted that part.  Right wing, but I thought more reliable than Gatewaypundit or Breitbart.  At least at one time they were.

    I know it does.  But the bill doesn't say that. You can read it here:

    https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729033-Green-New-Deal-FINAL

    Go ahead, find that passage. 

  8. 2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

    Oh, and apparently it also mentions “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

    I was with you on the unable to work.  That “unwilling” part is quite problematic for me, though.  

    Does it? I've read the whole thing and done a word search. I don't see that anywhere. 

    Edit: I see, that phrase isn't in the resolution. It comes from an overview document that was produced at one point. Strangely enough, the only groups reporting this  phrase are a bunch of right wing sources. 

  9. Just now, Lobwedgephil said:

    He has mentioned his coverage is bad several times. Where he has wifi, he tests normal speeds. Seems like a coverage issue to me with one router, but maybe not. 

    Maybe. He doesn't seem to really know. That is why I asked him to actually test and report numbers (and for him to describe the problems he experiences). I would want to know up/down and latency at different points. Hell, for all I know his actual issue is his upload bandwidth. Most plans have the download/upload ratio too much in favor of download. People really underestimate how important upload can be nowadays. 

    • Like 1
  10. 32 minutes ago, Lobwedgephil said:

    Your 100 is fine, get a mesh system for better wifi coverage. You don't have to "move your wifi" as you say. The base stays where your router is now, and plug in other nodes where needed, solves your coverage problem. 

    If he is getting the advertised speed throughout his house, the issue isn't his wifi coverage. 

  11. 11 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

    We run the satellite tv, two gaming systems, and about 10-12 other devices on the system.  Testing i seem to be getting advertised speeds. 

    What experiences are deficient for you? Gaming is latency driven, but with fiber I expect yours is sub 10ms. With that many devices you may be exceeding your bandwidth, especially if multiple are streaming at the same time. Att gigabit is 80 a month for me, so maybe it is worth it for you. also, no data caps. Keep in mind, you will not get full speed over wireless most likely for any single device. 

  12. 45 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

    I have ATT Internet 100.  it is part of a promo and I get it for $50 a month rather than their advertised $70/ month.  I have a fiber line coming into the house.  Should I upgrade to the Internet 300 or 1000 package?

    That is up to your needs. 100 mbps is certainly enough for most folks for surfing and streaming. Let's test your connections first and see if you are getting the advertised speed. At 100 mbps, your wireless should rarely be your bottleneck absent poor coverage. 

  13. 1 hour ago, pepper brooks said:

    I have att fiber internet.  I run it through a nitehawk router.  Not sure this is a great set up.  My wireless router and att modem are all upstairs in the center of the house.  That said my wifi coverage isn't great.  Also my speeds aren't that great either despite having technicians come out to try and improve matters.  Do I need a better provider, better wireless coverage, wifi booster?  What?  I know jack shit about any of this other than I pay a lot for internet and bought a separate router over the ATT hardware, and my service seems pretty minor league for what I spend. I'm in Houston, west university neighborhood if that matters.  

    Plug in directly to the ATT router and go to speedtest.net. Do the same for your nighthawk. Then use your wifi and do the same from your primary devices (phone, laptop, desktop?)  in a few locations around the house. Report the results. 

    Possible bottlenecks:

    (1) your ISP is slow. I have ATT fiber gigapower in Houston. It has been pretty awesome from the get go (gigabit up and down consistently, less than 3 ms of latency). I'm not sure about the lesser tiers of service. What do you have?

    (2) your router combination is slow. ATT is a bit wonky with their routers and fiber service. You can use a third-party router, but it requires passing through the ATT router. If you do this wrong, things may not be running at optimal speeds. 

    (3) your wifi is slow (I assume running through the nighthawk). Provide a model #. 

    (4) your wifi coverage is bad. This is where placement of the wifi-router matters. You may want to look into mesh wifi if this is the issue. 

    (5) your devices' wifi receivers are poor. Even the best connection with the best wifi isn't going to give you great speeds if not supported by the wifi-receiver. 

    Once we know the results of the tests, we can start to diagnose the problem. 

    • Like 1
  14. 1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Again the process of communication has broken down. It's a state of the union address not state of the party address. What do you not understand about that concept ?  The success occurred whether under Trump or Obama. Presidents rarely have much to do with the economy as has been said here by many many people.  Which is true to some extent. I'd say the removal of some bureaucratic stuff by Trump has helped spur some of the growth we're seeing into the 100th month now.  The growth/stability occurring under Mr. O's watch also helped this new growth to be sure.

    Clapping for that success that helps American citizens is the issue, I don't care who it happened under.  My wife and I did great under Mr. Obamas last admin. and I was happy to proclaim it here (Shaggy) and other places.

    It doesn't fucking matter. She doesn't have to clap. It is pointless to clap. And, again, the President treated it as a "look at me" address, not a general state of the union address. He doesn't deserve applause. She didn't interrupt. She didn't do anything to make a scene. Shut the fuck up about it. 

  15. Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Not a one, and I think the ra ra stuff is kind of silly, but genuine success is worth a clap from both parties. They're elected official serving the public allegedly. They ALL look like party hacks when they can't recognize success.

    Increased employment for women and minorities is exactly what she 's been calling for and not a peep, until the group huddle when it was probably pointed out that they were part of that increased female employment statistic.  

    The President has jack shit to do with any of that and I think you know that. It wasn't him touting the success of the nation. It was him glorifying himself (again). It didn't deserve shit. 

    • Like 1
  16. 2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    It's a STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS. Not a state of the party address. Matters not which party it happens under. It's a childish little look at me be the big bad congresswoman.  I'd like to think her actions will speak louder than her words or silence. So far she's acting like the typical, elected, opposition figure.  Yeah she is.....

    Is there some requirement that anyone cheer at the state of the union address? Seriously, the big deal is she didn't make a big deal of things? This is stupid. 

    • Like 1
  17. 1 hour ago, tazhorn said:

    Maybe it wouldn't work in more populous areas now until the technology the border patrol uses improved to the point where a checkpoint would be just a minor slowdown for traffic.  It would definitely work in less populous areas though now because a lot of drug traffickers and human smugglers dont come through the checkpoints down near the border...They come across the border in remote areas that have no checkpoint.  Use dirtroads, or just hike across desert to get to a place to be picked up by people on this side of the border... But, at some point, to get to the interior US, no matter how they get into the country, they would have to cross I10 with the drugs or people they smuggle...So, if checkpoints were closer to I10 they would catch more people like that...

    Those check points already exist. 

  18. 52 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

    Of course it wan't "ok" in the 80's. (it was never ok) That's not what I'm saying, at least. 

    I am saying that it was, by and large, "ok" in Texas. 

    Remind me. How many decades ago were the Confederate statues removed from the UT campus?

     

    No, no it wasn't. Would some small towns in Texas find it appropriate? I guess. Would the state population as a whole find it appropriate? Fuck no. Jeezus. 

  19. 26 minutes ago, tazhorn said:

    Yes, putting a checkpoint in the center of Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc on I10 would be crazy and retarded, that is why I said it would be OUTSIDE  the cities and towns on the interstates and state highways thst feed into I10.  So basically if you lived in Houston now nothing would change for you.  You could hop on I10, exit I10, etc all day long while in Houston without hitting a checkpoint at all.  You could hop on I10 and drive to San Antonio without hitting a checkpoint, no problem.  You could exit I10, get back on I10 in San Antonio all day long without hitting any checkpoint... The only time you would hit a checkpoint is if you exited I10 to get on one of the Interstates or highways headed south or north, and that would be only if you went far enough outside the city to hit the checkpoint....

    So... how does having the checkpoint somewhat nearer to i-10 than now accomplish anything? And, when you say outside the city, do you mean the city limits? The greater metro-area? Is NASA a part of Houston? Is Pearland? League City? Sugar Land? Pasadena? Again, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of citizens live technically south of and outside of Houston, but for all practical purposes are part of the city.  Your solution is dumb. It aims to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It solves it by either invoking a solution that already exists or by screwing up a major metropolitan area. Oh, and again, not constitutional. 

  20. 44 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

    Yep.

    Grow the fuck up (or words to that effect).

    Look at LBJ and all the good he did. And look at all the racial/racist shit he did, too. Could LBJ survive in today's environment? Hell no, imo. What's important, to me, is what he accomplished.

    The world isn't some morally pure place. 

    You misunderstood his post I think. While you may have had a point, this particularly instance a poor example of it. He should resign. 

  21. 45 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    Lulz.  This is ignoring a pretty big predicate. It’s like the TexAgs claim that Merkel is causing the genocide of her people by allowing so many immigrants in that the white Germans will be bred out of existence.  

     

    Uh, this predicate? 

    "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"

    Are you really telling me you dont think we've gotten pretty close that? 

  22. 8 hours ago, tazhorn said:

    San Antonio and Houston are on I10.  Why do you need a checkpoint between them?  The checkpoints would be at state lines on I10 if you had them at all.  Those checkpoints are already on I10 now in the Southwest states..The check points on the state highways/  Interstates that feed into or out of  I10 outside the cities and towns would be the ones with slow downs depending on which highway or Interstate...How many people come into San Antonio or Houston from the South to hit I10? That's where slowdowns would be..

    Uh, millions? You realize i10 is right in the fucking center of Houston, right? I mean, all of fucking downtown is south of i10. Your idea is illegal and beyond stupid. 

×
×
  • Create New...