Mitch Farber
CEO - NETbilling, Inc. Email / Phone: 888-357-8166 / 661-252-2456
Transaction processing & 24/7 call center services with exceptional rates and flexibility, since 1998!
imo yeah, too short but really I dont think any amount of time would be adequate for this particular subject
Well, I am glad it only went that long. I bought a new camera for the sole purpose to video this panel. They said the battery was good for 2.5 hours (in the manual) to 3.0 hours (store ad). It lasted about an hour. Luckily, my DLSR has a video option which caught the end, but I was running out of power on it too.
Well, I am glad it only went that long. I bought a new camera for the sole purpose to video this panel. They said the battery was good for 2.5 hours (in the manual) to 3.0 hours (store ad). It lasted about an hour. Luckily, my DLSR has a video option which caught the end, but I was running out of power on it too.
I have not watched the entire video, so if there is a color change towards the end, that would be it. Luckily, it happened during the Q&A portion, when they were discussing whether or not to extend it past the allocated 45 minutes. I am pretty fast, so I do not think any actual question or response was missed.
That's what I got out of it, and it's something I know has been asked time and time again and to the best of my knowledge it's never been "fully" answered.
The other thing, as MUCH as everyone keeps trying to play the "protect kids" I'd love someone to ask "how is lumping porn into 1 tld PROTECTING KIDS?"
Right this moment if my daughter got online and typed whatever.com there MAY be porn that she see's and is then exposed to.
BUT if she types whatever.xxx there will DEFF be porn there, to me as a "protecting kids" it's just bullshit, cause ALL kids have to do to 'find' porn is type whatever.xxx and viola there's porn.
Same thing I said about the 2257 stuff, IF it's to protect kids then WHY do the "granny "Milf" and "Cougar" sites have to follow it, did I miss the invention of time machines???
The other thing, as MUCH as everyone keeps trying to play the "protect kids" I'd love someone to ask "how is lumping porn into 1 tld PROTECTING KIDS?"
Right this moment if my daughter got online and typed whatever.com there MAY be porn that she see's and is then exposed to.
BUT if she types whatever.xxx there will DEFF be porn there, to me as a "protecting kids" it's just bullshit, cause ALL kids have to do to 'find' porn is type whatever.xxx and viola there's porn.
-Loki-
Because if parents are responsible they will have filtering software on their home PCs that will prevent them from accessing .XXX - but we know parents like to rely on others to do their work for them.
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that
Great video. Watched the entire thing. Lots of good questions with many heated moments with Vaughn Liley. Quite the character he is. Seems like some good information was revealed a bit. Not that it changes the situation much.
But was interesting to hear that for ways of protecting kids online, it's the parents job to police their computer. According to Vaughn, his company doesnt want isp's to require parental blocks upfront on .XXX. The person know's their going to an adult site because it says .XXX. No verification required. Just basically what we already have in place now, with "Yes im 18 let me in" or click "no im minor, take me away".
Great video. Watched the entire thing. Lots of good questions with many heated moments with Vaughn Liley. Quite the character he is. Seems like some good information was revealed a bit. Not that it changes the situation much.
But was interesting to hear that for ways of protecting kids online, it's the parents job to police their computer. According to Vaughn, his company doesnt want isp's to require parental blocks upfront on .XXX. The person know's their going to an adult site because it says .XXX. No verification required. Just basically what we already have in place now, with "Yes im 18 let me in" or click "no im minor, take me away".
not to mention if you are typing in fuckmyass.com it is pretty clear what type of site you are going to.
ICM says they don't want any regulation, but if this thing turns out to be a bust with nobody buying them you know they will push for some kind of legislation that will require it. They have spent millions to get to this point and just dropped another 8 million in their deal with McCafee, you know they won't just go quietly in the night if people don't buy them.
hmmm, I have to say that even if I do not particularly care for his product, I think the guy is very personable. There is no question that many others in our business feel the same way. He is definitely liked by many.
If he came across as a douche it could be because he was in the unenviable position of being the only "pro" voice on the panel. Even the "neutral attorney" did not last long in that position. He was being ganged up on. If he did not request time to respond, he never would have been.
Same thing I said about the 2257 stuff, IF it's to protect kids then WHY do the "granny "Milf" and "Cougar" sites have to follow it, did I miss the invention of time machines???
Apparently, some 16-year old teens look like they're 30.
Comment