User Profile: ECtech


Member Since: May 21, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [6] September 28, 2014 at 4:39pm

    As much as I despise the POS pResident that is currently occupying the White House; I can’t condone him being shot, nor any of his family members being shot. I just don’t think that is right.

    However, I certainly hope that he suffers immensely for what he has done (and will do) to this country – not to mention race relations – which he has set back 100 years.

  • [8] September 28, 2014 at 2:17pm

    Evidently, the White House doesn’t have bullet-proof glass.

    Why not?

    Responses (3) +
  • [23] September 26, 2014 at 4:17pm


    He’s made enough that retirement should be an easy choice for him.

    Seriously, how many ‘regular’ people have this option? I don’t have anything against him for being well paid or rich, but I think that he and his family can survive pretty comfortably for the rest of their lives.

    Most of us cannot do that.

  • [4] September 26, 2014 at 3:52pm

    The EPA has nothing better to do.

    Of course, those crappy coiled fluorescent light bulbs that have more mercury and don’t last even as long as a typical incandescent bulb are not a concern for them.

  • [3] September 26, 2014 at 3:32pm

    I found her.

    See the two girls kissing the one girl on the cheek?

    Ann is the one to the right and just behind them. She wearing a dark sweater with the “large white collar” looking design.

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] September 26, 2014 at 3:24pm

    She isn’t a lesbian you nitwit.

  • [8] September 26, 2014 at 3:20pm

    If I was rich, I would do this kinda’ thing all the time.

    I just want to live a comfortable life, but I really don’t need a million-dollar mansion or a collection of Ferrari’s – just a nice humble abode and being able to pay my modest bills is enough for me. Of course, taking an occasional cruise would be fun – but not required.

  • [13] September 26, 2014 at 3:07pm

    While you did the right thing, I tend to agree with you.

    Despite that, I would still have no other choice but to intervene and do as you did. You probably saved that boy from serious injury or even death. I would still do it even if it meant jail time.

    You did the right thing although doing good deeds never seems to go unpunished in this upside-down world.

  • September 24, 2014 at 8:09pm

    Try downloading it directly (not using iTunes) and installing it. You can download it here:


  • [5] September 22, 2014 at 3:17pm

    These people are really, really stupid.

    I loved the pictures though.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 12, 2014 at 3:58pm

    “…the sensor is 99.99% accurate with fingerprint recognition — even with partial prints.”

    That’s .01% less reliable than I would want it to be. But, then again, I think “smart” guns are a terrible idea and in all likelihood the gun will fail when you need it the most.

  • September 11, 2014 at 4:57pm

    “The fact is, Netflix competes with Comcasts own services (streaming and cable), so it is in Comcasts interest to slow Netflix’s traffic (which I am paying for as the consumer) so their service appears to be superior quality.”

    That isn’t the full story, as I said above.

  • September 11, 2014 at 4:55pm

    - Sep. 11, 2014 at 8:54am


    “I hate to break it to you, but you won’t get 50mbps data transfer from most websites and it’s often less than 2mbps.”

    What data center are you using? Mine provides me with a solid 10mbps with a total of 200Mb/s.”

    Please read my post again. I’m sure you know the difference between a WEBSITE and an internet network connection, right?

  • September 11, 2014 at 4:46pm

    Why don’t you tell the the truth?

    Yes, there’s a conflict between Comcast and Netflix – which was caused by Netflix. Comcast is NOT the one at fault here. YES, Netflix WILL have to pay extra fees to Comcast IF they want the additional infrastructure required for the type of network connection to Comcast that THEY want.

  • September 10, 2014 at 10:40pm

    “I better get 50mbps speed vs 2mbps for sites that are throttled.”

    I hate to break it to you, but you won’t get 50mbps data transfer from most websites and it’s often less than 2mbps.

  • [1] September 10, 2014 at 10:09pm

    “The issue is providers want to make it where THEY decide what you should see and what you shouldn’t see. They’re holding companies like Netflix hostage and telling them that if they don’t pay up, YOU won’t get access to their servers. Does this sound right to you? If so, what’s next? YouTube? CNN\FoxNews\theBlaze? Reddit?”

    Which providers? Got any evidence besides pro-net-neutrality articles?

    What’s my ISP gonna do when I use a proxy server (or VPN) to access these sites?

    What you’re describing would be VERY difficult to implement and maintain. Again, I ask…what ISP would want the headaches of having to do this?

    It’s much easier for them to do things the way they are doing them now. You pay for a certain amount of bandwidth and surf the web anywhere you want.

  • September 10, 2014 at 9:54pm

    From the article:

    “Cable companies want to slow down (and break!) your favorite sites, for profit,”

    Although this statement is a lie, the implication is that an access “slow down” is involved – also known as throttling.

  • [2] September 10, 2014 at 9:44pm

    Why is it that some of you don’t bother to read and find out how websites work?

    I’m seeing some posts here that are FOR “net neutrality” claiming that ISPs could (suddenly, I guess) decide to limit your access speeds to certain websites based on some arbitrary nonsense (insert a reason, it doesn’t really matter).

    First off, this is EXACTLY backwards from how websites actually work. Most websites actually don’t need a large amount of bandwidth to begin with and that includes THIS website. The Blaze doesn’t host these videos – they are external links. This means that when you are watching a video here, The Blaze’ bandwidth is NOT BEING USED. It’s this way for a vast amount of websites as well.

    Website OWNERS pay the website hosting companies an amount based on how much bandwidth they generally need and it can be pretty cheap if you don’t need a lot. Sites like Youtube and Netflix need large amounts of bandwidth AND THEY PAY FOR IT. This has nothing to do with your ISP and they don’t pay YOUR ISP for this bandwidth. In addition, it would be a technical nightmare for ISPs to try and throttle certain sites and not others (especially different sites for different customers). What ISP is going to even want to try and do this?

    This so called “net neutrality” is nothing more than a way to BEGIN government control of the internet.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] September 10, 2014 at 9:00pm

    “There is no reason why we don’t have WIRELESS INTERNET in all cities and just pay a small connection fee…oh wait I forgot if we tell people we need to run NEW LINES all the time we can charge more money… DATA ALL COST THE SAME…If people really knew how much data can be sent for almost nothing they would poop and grab pitchforks….I used to lay fiber-optics in midwest”

    I agree and disagree. While wireless everywhere would be nice, it requires quite a huge amount of infrastructure. Also, wireless isn’t as reliable as a wired connection and much more subject to RF interference as well. I do agree that it would be good for some people, but it wouldn’t be MY preference.

    As someone that likes online gaming, a wired connection is the best connection. For online gaming, latency (also known as ping times) is crucial for a good gaming experience. Lower latency is better. Wireless connections generally have higher latency (due to more overhead) than wired connections.

    So, for me, a wired connection is a must, although other people would probably be satisfied with a wireless ISP connection.

  • [3] September 10, 2014 at 8:51pm

    “Battle For The Net and other like-minded organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation identify net neutrality as “the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks equally.””

    These people are liars. THE INTERNET ALREADY WORKS THIS WAY!!!

    Don’t buy into this “net neutrality” scam. It’s really net CONTROL that they want. But…ISPs could limit traffic to certain websites…blah…blah…blah…

    Why would an ISP do this? It’s in their best interest (and yours) to make sure that their networks handle ALL traffic as quickly and efficiently as possible. Also, it would be a freakin’ nightmare for them (IPSs) to do what the “net neutrality” proponents are claiming.

    Don’t believe the “net neutrality” lies.

    Responses (2) +
123 To page: Go