I need some soma.... On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe you couch it in terms of this 90% tax being to fund free weed for > everyone. Once that's in place, nobody will pay attention to how much > you're skimming. > > Since not everyone is in to pot, you might need to expand beyond marijuana > to free diversions for everyone. Music, drugs, movies, etc. > > Actually, did you all read Aldous Huxley's *Brave New World? *This is > starting to sound like a mash up between that and Idiocracy. > > On 4/18/2016 1:23 AM, Cameron Crum wrote: > > Hasn't Gary Johnson been trying that "legalize pot" platform for the last > 3-4 elections? It hasn't really done much for him. Of course he is lacking > the whole take your money thing too. Maybe that will appeal to the dope > smokers? > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> That sounds perfect! >> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:53 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < >> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> You want to be head of the department of bribery and skullduggery? Im >>> going to need a good man in that spot, need to get set up to take payments >>> from cash to bitcoin to farmers daughters. Its all about ensuring a fluid >>> customer experience >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Mathew Howard < <mhoward...@gmail.com> >>> mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> That should do it. selling the plan to the legislative branch should be >>>> easy enough, just offer them a cut. >>>> >>>> I'd also like to get in early and request a cabinet position... I don't >>>> need a cut of the profits, just a job that isn't to much work but has >>>> plenty of opportunities for accepting bribes. >>>> On Apr 15, 2016 5:03 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Im legalizing pot, therefore i will win >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Moffett < <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>>> dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Since your kleptocracy platform won't be popular, what story will you >>>>> tell in order to get elected? >>>>> >>>>> How will you sell your plan to the legislative branch who will >>>>> actually have to make it law? >>>>> >>>>> I just don't know if this plan has been thought through very >>>>> thoroughly. >>>>> <https://youtu.be/93B072j-E3I?t=8>https://youtu.be/93B072j-E3I?t=8 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/15/2016 12:55 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I want to get in first and ask to be VP with a cut of the profits... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:52 AM >>>>> *To:* <af@afmug.com>af@afmug.com >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority? >>>>> >>>>> Thats just stupid. When Im president, I will just do away with that >>>>> funny business. Im still going to raise taxes to 90 percent, but im not >>>>> redistributing that to anybody but me. >>>>> >>>>> I dont know much about the cable tv industry or its actual >>>>> infrastructure obviously >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>> <j...@kyneticwifi.com>j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It IS delivered to the customer via the ISP, but it's encrypted due to >>>>>> content / rebroadcast rights blah blah blah >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >>>>>> < <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> > Well, I learned something. I just assume all content was only >>>>>> delivered to >>>>>> > the service provider, and then the service provider handed it to the >>>>>> > consumer via their delivery infrastructure. That would make more >>>>>> sense to >>>>>> > me. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I just never saw entertainment (internet included) as being >>>>>> something worthy >>>>>> > of any federal attention >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>>> <j...@kyneticwifi.com>j...@kyneticwifi.com> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> It's a bit of a mess really. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> You have inbound content feeds or peering, which is often >>>>>> encrypted. >>>>>> >> This hits their different "content servers" in your network that >>>>>> you >>>>>> >> often have no control over. A customer ONT has a list of channels >>>>>> and >>>>>> >> encryption keys programmed into it, and it sends off a bunch of >>>>>> >> multicast join requests for the content to these content servers. >>>>>> The >>>>>> >> content is end-end encrypted. You're kind of a dumb pipe in this >>>>>> >> scenario. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> < <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> > maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service >>>>>> provider >>>>>> >> > gets >>>>>> >> > the content, however they get the content, then delivers the >>>>>> content on >>>>>> >> > their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the content >>>>>> provider >>>>>> >> > delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box >>>>>> currently just >>>>>> >> > transiting the service provider network? >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>>> <j...@kyneticwifi.com>j...@kyneticwifi.com> >>>>>> >> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> I have no idea what you just said. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in many >>>>>> cases) >>>>>> >> >> to send content feeds. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat farm >>>>>> now. >>>>>> >> >> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys, >>>>>> and we >>>>>> >> >> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set top. >>>>>> It's a >>>>>> >> >> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set tops >>>>>> that >>>>>> >> >> will work with their systems. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >>>>>> >> >> < <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> >> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their >>>>>> >> >> > infrastructure >>>>>> >> >> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a >>>>>> square peg >>>>>> >> >> > into a >>>>>> >> >> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out >>>>>> well. It >>>>>> >> >> > will >>>>>> >> >> > however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler >>>>>> process, so >>>>>> >> >> > thats >>>>>> >> >> > always good. >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM, < <ch...@wbmfg.com> >>>>>> ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but >>>>>> thinking >>>>>> >> >> >> this >>>>>> >> >> >> is >>>>>> >> >> >> almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers. Looks >>>>>> like good >>>>>> >> >> >> stuff to >>>>>> >> >> >> me. >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> From: That One Guy /sarcasm >>>>>> >> >> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM >>>>>> >> >> >> To: <af@afmug.com>af@afmug.com >>>>>> >> >> >> Subject: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority? >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/> >>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/ >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> First world problems. >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> -- >>>>>> >> >> >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't >>>>>> see your >>>>>> >> >> >> team >>>>>> >> >> >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the >>>>>> team. >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > -- >>>>>> >> >> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't >>>>>> see your >>>>>> >> >> > team >>>>>> >> >> > as >>>>>> >> >> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > -- >>>>>> >> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see >>>>>> your team >>>>>> >> > as >>>>>> >> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>>> team as >>>>>> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >> >> > >
