Mr.Quiggles

They are different topics, but it was just an example to show how unequally the internet is designed to effectively serve the public as best as possible. And Comcast won't throttle speeds of certain websites to prioritize others. The only instance of where Comcast was caught remotely attempting this practice was when Netflix failed to pay Comcast more money for using so much of their data. Comcast isn't going around to sites that use so little on the grand scale and ask them to pay more or face throttling. The idea that ISPs will abuse their power is truly speculative, but not far fetched. Although considering it happened one time in really an extreme circumstance (Not too sure about Verizon's History), I'd say this is an industry that doesn't need to be regulated.

Yes, these are what these regulations are supposed to do. But here's my opinion. What's wrong with fast lanes? The internet doesn't work as an equal entity. For example, at my house I have 125Mb/s DL, and 15Mb/s UL. Why is Comcast treating my download speeds with such high priority and not my upload speeds? An equal internet would be 120Mb/s DL and UL. But I completely am fine with this setup design on Comcast's behalf. The reason this setup design is implemented by ISPs is obvious when you know that the average customer, if not the overwhelming majority, is much more of a consumer of bandwidth (Facebook, Steam Games, Watching videos, viewing pictures, articles, ect) than a contributor. (This is known as the Internet's 1% Rule). Here, the internet is modified in an "unequal way" to better serve the customers as a whole. I understand the treatment of equal data packets is a different argument, so let me address that. The internet doesn't work equally with the infrastructure we have in our country, which is primarily copper cable. It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint to give Netflix and let's say, LCPDFR the same bandwidth speeds dedicated only to them in fast lanes. Big corporations could simply buy all the available bandwidth on the internet, whether or not they use it and leave none to the consumer. Netflix clearly needs a much higher bandwidth allocation for their systems as they are handling so much more customers, and so much more data than a primarily forum based site with relatively small sized gaming modifications, the packets of data which don't crucially need to be delivered in A) A particular order and B) Near immediately. In this sense, I see it as OK to give fast lane priority to them, as it will better serve the the customers of the both Netflix and Comcast. They use the bandwidth, it makes sense to make a small exception to the system in their case. Even if LCPDFR and Netlix has the same server speeds, which I doubt it does, it makes sense that if Netflix uses so much more bandwidth, is much more popular, and pays more, that they should get priority from the ISPs. These two sites are competing for limited resources in a private business while the ISPs struggle to upgrade their infrastructure with the times. People say that freedom of speech is threatened when one's connection is prioritized over another, but when dealing with the internet this is a rather inapplicable argument. Content still will be arrived a few seconds delayed at the most, with the same integrity and quality as distributed. ISPs guarantee speeds, and customers will get it. Especially with large corporations that use so much data, it's not unreasonable to ask them to pay more for all the bandwidth they use, as they can afford it. Ultimately,the concept of fast lanes is not an evil one, as long as the connections to everyone else remain equal and true to what the customer is paying for. It better addresses bandwidth, and speeds in a system where there is a disproportionate amount of content being moved around the internet by customers and businesses. I think that Comcast's decision to purposefully slow down Netflix's internet was a wrong one. But given a generally good track record of ISPs who given handle so much customers, money, and data, I'd much rather have private businesses regulate the market than the US Government.

That's true. Obviously they're still a privately owned companies with a board, CEO, shareholders, ect, they're just subject to more regulation when it comes to their pricing we assume. There's no way to avoid government regulation in everything nowadays, and obviously the telecom industry is no exception. We don't know for sure until the FCC releases the new rules it has power to do now, but we can assume it's most powerful measures are regulations on the pricing of certain fast lanes of certain customers.

I think that might be exaggerating the truth a little bit with the entire government control, not out of the question though, but I'd honestly rather have the freedom of the private sector prevail over the government. Especially in the case of an industry that really hasn't had that much problems, mostly everyone has access to decent internet speeds (A lot of people's slow internet is their fault, not the ISP), and have the ability to get faster speeds for paying more, which is honestly only fair. Sometimes people feel entitled to things they aren't entitled to. In the case of Comcast, they are running an around the clock nationwide infrastructure that is being strained by the sudden popularity increase of HD/4K streaming, as displayed by this visual below. It only makes sense, and is fair, that those using so much and stressing the network pay a little bit more, money they can easily afford to give customers the speeds they want while paying for the traffic they use. Do people think the cloud is actually a real cloud that is completely free? No, it's billions of dollars of servers, fiber, and copper. I honestly don't see how this is even debatable, but that's my opinion.

Here's another good article from Ars: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/ The FCC (USA GOV - Federal Communications Commission), a part of the federal government tasked with regulating interstate commerce (Commerce Clause) in "radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable" (FCC Wikipedia), voted to give itself powers to regulate the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) by classifying fixed and mobile broadband internet (Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, Sprint, ect) as "telecommunications services" under Title II of the 1934 (Revised 1996) Telecommunications Act. Well what does this mean? As of a few hours ago, ISP who provide the backbone of the internet to connect networks to each other, were private companies who did not have to listen to the government. Now, ISPs are considered under Title II of the Act, which means the government can legally regulate them, or tell them what to do in the form of a rules list, instead of the ISPs doing whatever they wish. The question comes in whether or not people think this is good, or bad for both the internet, free speech, capitalism, government control, and more highly debated and controversial topics.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/technology/fcc-rules-net-neutrality/index.html Don't know what Net Neutrality is? Why isn't this in the Technology category? http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/ Opinions? I put this debate into Politics & Society because it falls more into the guidelines of politics than it does technology. It doesn't require a deep understanding of the internet, or computers, but more of a position on where you stand politically and economically. The major arguments are: Conservative values would point towards the idea that the government should stay out of regulating private business, which keeps Capitalism, and more importantly, Democracy free and open. In the whole Netflix vs. Comcast debate, conservative values would align themselves with Comcast, saying it is their right to charge a customer who is using so much of their infrastructure more to deliver them the speeds they need for their customers. When the government interferes with private business practices, that is when real abuse come in. More progressive values would argue that ISPs would never pay fair, as proven in the Comcast vs. Netflix flame war that started all of this when Comcast throttled Netflix's speed to entice them to pay more money. Liberals would argue that ISPs would give certain priority to certain customers, especially to those who pay more. The internet and free speech is therefore threatened. The government should step in to regulate interstate commerce, and declare the Internet a Public Utility, and not a private business ordeal. - My thoughts on the matter I find it so sad how massive quantities of people on the internet, who never did the research, heavily supported Net Neutrality and ultimately got it passed the democratic way, messaging the FCC and their elected Representatives. Their message was clear, the people wanted the internet to remain free, equal, and open. With such irony, the people voted for something that in fact caused the exact opposite, government control and regulation on a free, unregulated capitalistic business practice. It's a very sad day for the internet in my eyes.

That setup would be great! I'd recommend an SSD for maybe your OS and GTAIV Though, everything else can go on the slower, mass storage Hard Drive.

You could try my Massachusetts State Police Peds

I don't mean to speak on behalf of mods, but commenting on archived posts (Older than 30 days) generally isn't well taken. With that said, in the "default_config.ini" or your vehicle using ELSV8, enter this in the coronas section. [ CORONAS ] Headlights = off, 0 Taillights = off, 0 IndicatorsF = off, 0 IndicatorsB = off, 0 Reverselights = on, 0 Reverse lights will flash in LTSG3 whether or not the car supports it.

That's a pretty nice system for several thousand dollars, maybe not cost effective, but powerful nonetheless. As ninja said, the lack of an SSD is quite strange, several terabytes of SSD storage instead of an unreasonable amount of HDD storage is a slight bottleneck, a little unorthodox as well, but whatever works. You never said it, so I'm not correcting you, but just want to make it aware that SLI 4GB Video Cards doesn't equal 8GB of Video Card Ram, it is still 4GB usable VRAM even though there is a total of 8GB.

Didn't know Shrek fantasy was back.

I'll just add a few things. The build as is will most definitely run most things on high settings for years to come. Before reading, I'd just like to point out that pretty much everything here is really minor, small issues that I'd personally change. The build as is would be extremely effective and not requiring tweaking. With that said, here are my suggestions. I never was a fan of 120MM fan rads, I'd go with a Corsair H100i 240MM rad. For just a little more, it's a dual rad and in my opinion, more sufficient at cooling, especially if you're going to overclock. If you're not going to overclock, probably not too necessary. Your processor choice isn't even capable of overclocking anyways. I'd recommend a Corsair 750W PSU for that build, especially if you consider perhaps doing SLI in the future. 550W may work for the system, but PSUs work better if they're not straining at 100% all the time. You mentioned you were going to get a GTX 780TI, just make sure it's a 4GB model. Newer games are increasingly utilizing higher textures, and especially with 4K gaming right around the corner, 4GB will become the new standard. I'd personally buy a GTX 970, because it performs pretty much at the same speed as the GTX 780TI, but significantly cheaper. However, with the whole controversy out, that's up to you. Cost Effectiveness Note: Great motherboard and all, but honestly, motherboards don't help to improve performance at all and that price is pretty much double what I'd pay. (Unless of course you get some $20 one). Those motherboards are loaded with so many extra features, that the basic gamer simply isn't going to touch. However, if you're a PC Enthusiast like me perhaps it may be worth your buck. Upgrade Compatibility Note: With Haswell out and Broadwell to be out by in 2ND QTR 2015, you opted for a Ivy Bridge CPU, a little outdated, but not in performance. The CPU Choice is good as is, but perhaps I'd recommend a Haswell i7 (Requires LGA 1150 Motherboard, Z97 Chipset). In the future if you wished to upgrade, you'd only be able to upgrade to one generation beyond Haswell, which would be Broadwell since Skylake, coming out after Broadwell most likely will not use the LGA 1150 Socket. Intel 530 SSD is an incredibly fast, rugged SSD, however with more emphasis on rugged than fast. There are SSDs on the market, such as the Samsung 850 PRO and probably the 850 EVO that are faster. Intel, as usual, places most of the value in their products in the reliability factors, which I applaud greatly. Honestly, both SSDs would be fast, but technically there are faster ones, but what you'd see is so minuscule, and I think Intel deserves something for the technology they do. I think that WDD Green drives are gross, for mass storage you'd benefit from a WDD Black 1TB just because of the speed difference. However, speed and HDD are pretty much oxymoron, so pick your poison when it comes to HDDs. Overall, great build, and good luck.

The first time I drove a car was when I was 17 (Didn't really bother to drive beforehand). I drove an unmarked, grey crown vic that was an exact copy of this on a closed course at a Student Trooper Program back in June of 2014. There was a state trooper that was my driving instructor and they had set up cones to practice things like Turn and Weave, Anti Lock breaking, and tight corners. Never have I ever had such a thrill in my life than flooring a crown vic and listening to that engine roar at 60MPH with lights and sirens and being able to just suddenly break as hard as you can in a Crown Vic with tires screeching.

"how much do you worry" Yes.

Oh woops, I thought he said he had $700 for a CPU and then wanted to get a cheap motherboard LOL. Yeah $700 for the entire system for AMD.

The architectural design of Intel, especially i5's are perfect for gaming because Intel's design is to have fewer, but stronger cores around the 4 core mark where AMD is really into multicore support usually around the 8 core mark. Realistically, games don't use more than a couple cores anyways, so Intel really shines here. Additionally, Intel is exclusively leading the charge with developing new technologies we'll all be using within 5, 10, or 20 years. They have a far vast, and superior company of engineers. It didn't used to be that way, but today they're one of the best tech companies out there, investing time and money into research that may not be profitable now or even ever, but somebody has to do it, and that's Intel. To me that means something. Intel is more than just a brand for me.

Oh absolutely. We just don't have the WWII levels of confidence Americans had in the Armed Forces today. Granted WWII was a completely different time and type of war, today the American people are starting to ask questions about what we do, and want to be more involved, especially after the bloody war of Vietnam. That war was so instrumental, I personally mark it the beginning of the 21st century, as it changed so much in America. Also, once people have a mindset of "Down with the War" or "Is it in America's best interest to fight these people?", it's hard to change them. With that said though, in many cases, I applaud the American people to be skeptical, and ask questions about the intentions of their government. An unchecked government is a bad government. Well said, obviously we'll have to coexist with the people in the Middle East for peace, because we can't just eradicate them because we don't like them. Additionally, the vast majority of Muslims anyways are not the radical extremists of Al-Qaeda, ISIL, Al-Shabaab, ect. We can't just ignore this, the debate comes into how we shouldn't ignore this. Military Action? Tried it. Withdraw completely? Unlikely/Impossible. Coalitions? Perhaps. Unilateral decisions? Works sometimes, but often influences more people to join for their cause. It's a fine line, but I think our Military forces are doing a good job with the task at hand. Very noticeably they have learned what's worked and what's not, and are actively adapting new strategies.

"the Western world is justified to invade the ME, and cleanse it." That made me cringe. Have we not learned from the past decade? The Middle East is a region fixed in their ways, and more or less completely resistant to change. You cannot cleanse the religious, conservative epicenter of humanity. The history, culture, traditions, will not be overturned in that area for generations to come. Additionally, it is not in our best interests, nor is it a realistic goal. I'm not going to elaborate on that, I think we all know that's true. The absolute worst thing America could do would be to put boots on the ground and start a ground war. The Military simply doesn't have the will of the American people behind them. We learned the will of the people needs to be there in both World War II, the Vietnam War, and the most recent War on Terror. I support targeted attacks and coordination with local military and paramilitary forces. The peak of the American empire has long since faded away, and now as we compete with more realistic threats, like the rise of superpowers such as Russia and China, we must leave more or less, minor on the scale events to regions that can take care of it. One further note about starting a ground war, it is a war that is completely unwinnable. There is no defined enemy in uniform, there is no command forces to overtake. People in these areas of the world will constantly step up to defend their land from Western ideas readily. Again, we learned this in Vietnam, and we learned again when history repeated itself in Iraq & Afghanistan. To put things in perspective, ISIL is not really a threat compared to many other things going on in the world right now. I hate to sound sadistic, but the death of a few people by a group of religious extremists whose goal is to get us to retaliate is not America's top priority. There is so much more at stake with Ukraine, Russia, ect. Finally, one has to realize that fighting asymmetric warfare takes time. ISIL won't be destroyed with one, swift stroke by the United States. It will take constant action, both diplomatic and military to bring this to a close.

It seems like a new edition to the Ford Explorer Police Interceptor lineup, just looks more like raptor type design on an SUV. But we'll see! Thanks for that.

Ford announced they will be releasing a new Police Interceptor Model February 12th, at the Chicago Auto festival and revealed an outline image of the new Police Cruiser. https://twitter.com/Ford/status/562399224583970816/photo/1 http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2015/02/ford_to_unveil_new_police_inte.html Thoughts? To me, it looks like a SUV. IS IT THE NEW 2015 CROWN VICTORIA?