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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
That sounds perfect!
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:53 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Im legalizing pot, therefore i will win
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Moffett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
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
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:52 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*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
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> 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
>>
>> <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> > 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
>> >> <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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,
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> >> >> 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/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
