User Profile: ECtech


Member Since: May 21, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [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) +
  • [-1] September 4, 2014 at 6:15pm

    There’s more examples there if ya’ look around the site.

  • [1] September 3, 2014 at 3:47pm

    ModeratorMichele -

    If you can get Windows repair to run (try pressing F8 repeatedly when you first turn on the computer). This should get you a boot menu with a repair option. If you get this far, the first thing you could try is “last known good configuration”.

    If that doesn’t work, repeat the process and choose the repair option. Windows often fails to repair automatically, but you should have success by doing it manually. The following website will show you how:

    Use the command shown for “Repairing the Master Boot Record” at the command prompt as shown on the website. Once you do that, you should be able to boot to Windows (hopefully).

    If you can do that, the new MBR (master boot record) will probably get reinfected by the rootkit if it hasn’t been completely removed. It’s a very good idea to run TDSSkiller (by Kaspersky), which can completely remove the rootkit.

    You can get it here (scroll down and click on “1. How to disinfect a compromised system” to download it):

    Good luck.

  • [3] August 23, 2014 at 8:25pm

    “Wow men, if the worse you got hit with from a “crazy” wife is a little jail or court time, be thankful. And of course, it has nothing to do with anything you did, like cheat on her, really download porn, or any number of things men do that disrespects the marriage.”

    First off; it’s NEVER “just a little jail or court time.” It screws up people’s lives and they may end up with a (false) record!

    You are nuts…and that’s coming from someone that’s bipolar.

  • [2] August 23, 2014 at 8:16pm

    Unfortunately, there is no way to know what is legit (legal age) and what isn’t without actually seeing the web page.

    Some internet search engines do include a “family filter” such as Google and Startpage (I use Startpage), but it’s impossible for them to catch everything. They will block pages based on search terms also, but can block some legit pages (like medical information) if the filters are too aggressive.

    The “lady” that did this probably had to do quite a bit of searching to get what she was after because all main search engines will block such pages – the known ones anyway.

  • [2] August 23, 2014 at 1:58pm

    Lol. Great movie!

  • [1] August 15, 2014 at 5:24pm

    Angry inquiry? Lol, no. LDS? Uh…no.

    “Dawkins speaks on this subject because I imagine he’s concerned about humanity and its future as a species.”

    Shouldn’t that be “Dr. Dawkins”? Frankly, I don’t care who/whom believes what, nor do I care what they think of me or my beliefs. That includes you.

    Furthermore, I’m not going to waste my time obtaining “insights” into this fool. That’s EXACTLY what he is, in my opinion. He can claim there is no creator, but that’s a foolish claim because atheists cannot possibly know something that they won’t know until they have died.

  • [1] August 15, 2014 at 2:37pm

    Hey Mr. Dawkins – A couple of questions for you:

    Why do you care SO MUCH about a religion and God that you profess to not believe in?

    Also, have you managed to find a toothbrush and toothpaste yet?

    Seriously, this guy’s teeth are really bad.

    Responses (3) +
  • August 14, 2014 at 5:48pm

    Same here Kupo. I have since switched to Guild Wars 2 (no monthly fees).

    Dattebayo -

    Alliance always had it easier…LOL
    Doing raids on Stormwind was a pain if you died – the graveyard was like 2 miles away.

  • [1] August 13, 2014 at 4:41pm

    Unless you’re running a “Hackintosh”, there is a proprietary piece of hardware built in called the TPM (Trusted Platform Module).

  • [1] August 11, 2014 at 4:10pm

    Nice try, but you are the one that is wrong. Go read the law. What you are talking about only applies to government institutions (DMV, etc.), although I’m sure you wish the government could force businesses to serve everyone.

    You see, I have owned a business prior to this one that was in a brick and mortar store (California). I could very easily refuse to do business with someone if I chose to. Now, that wouldn’t be a smart thing to do – UNLESS I had good reason. however, That reason is UP TO ME, It is not illegal as you claim – UNLESS your state has a law that states that EXPLICITLY – which is nearly impossible to do without citing every possible condition the law would have to include.

    BTW, I would have sold them the wedding dresses – it is up to them to wear them for whatever they wish after the sale, but that is MY opinion.

    Do you understand what I am saying yet?

123 To page: Go