I think you meant, "For what does it matter?" You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.

Let's eat Grandma!

or

Let's eat, Grandma!

Yes, grammar is still very important.

By the logic of the UK courts, if someone in the UK posts a pornographic picture of the prophet Muhammad and it's seen on the internet by anyone in a country where that's illegal, that person SHOULD be extradited upon request.

tvshack didn't put his service in the United States, individuals in the US used his service illegally. Once again, watch out gun manufacturers; you'll be responsible for the crimes committed with your guns. What if someone shot up a DVD production facility with a Colt gun and caused loss of revenue for members of the MPAA? It's clearly not the shooter's fault, since Colt firearms made a gun available to them. Treat the gun store as an ISP and you now have to go after Colt.

People avoid using the start menu for 2 maybe 3 reasons.

1. The start menu is full of company branding abuse not organization. e.g. start=>programs=>company name=>software division=>product series=>launch video editor
It's not perfect, but Gnome 3's menu is more or less organized by what the software does. e.g. "start"=>video applications=>launch video editor

2. Many programs automatically install icons on the desktop AND quick launch bar; no "need" to use the start menu (insert desktop housekeeping argument here)

3. In IT, many deployed programs are given direct launch access via icons on the desktop or quick launch bar, partly because of reason #1.

SINGLE splash screens could fix problem #1, then software could be grouped by default based on what it does, not who made it; but users could still organize it however they want later.

RIAA Laywer: Excuse me local gun shop owner, you can no longer carry the following guns, as they may be used in a crime... Gun store owner introduces RIAA to his law firm Smith & Wesson, then contacts the NRA and gets this all sorted out.

Software doesn't steal copyrighted content, people steal copyrighted content.

Satellite internet is expensive, slow and unreliable in poor weather.

Wireless carriers as ISP are some of the worst about pricing, bandwidth and restrictions e.g. shared internet connection (not via carrier approved hardware)/p2p/...

So who's supposed to control "public property" to the benefit of citizens by opening it up to competitors, space permitting?

There's no market solution to introduce ISP competition when 1 MAYBE 2 ISPs own the physical infrastructure to millions of customers in metro areas. Their only incentive is to leverage their monopoly and charge extra for "permium access" to flavor-of-the-month.com. It's far too difficult/expensive for private business to lay last mile connections. I'm sure the big ISPs will stand in their way first, followed by local governments refusing to let some "upstart" just run cable all over the community when there's already 1 perfectly good ISP, that also gives government buildings free TV. So, where it's not reasonable or feasible for physical connection competition, legislative net neutrality is necessary.

(US-centric) Most average Joe internet connections are allowed to reach a MAXIMUM bandwidth, while commercial accounts can be given MINIMUM bandwidth availability and are charged for their average bandwidth. As long as particular services/sites/protocols aren't selected for or against, I'm comfortable with an "up to" and "at least" bandwidth price modeling. However, if ISPs actually need to throttle my paltry 350KBps at any time as standard network management practice, then they are over selling their network and should legally be held accountable.

If I have a data cap, isn't it in the ISP's best interest to allow me a ton of bandwidth to gobble it up very quickly and start charging overages?

The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are very different, somewhat conflicting personalities.

In case you're too busy reading your bible I've mostly re-posted this just for you.

The fossil record can't show a smooth transition because not everything fossilizes (MOST don't) and very small fossils like mice etc. are very hard to find/identify, which is why the hunt continues. Do you really expect man to excavate the whole of earth and find most fossils?

Extinction events, by their nature, can wipe out even the most fit species, leaving a distinctly new evolutionary path for PREVIOUSLY less fit organisms on a global scale.

One of the marvels of science is the ability to fix mistakes and move on, instead of never eating bacon.

To see evolution in action read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_moth#Evolution/ [wikipedia.org]

Any other "creative" ideas you'd like to vomit my way?

God is an inconsistent character and therefore cannot be followed with logic. Let me paraphrase biblical legend:

God: Hey, Abraham! Go kill your son.
Abraham: OK.
God: No not really.
Abraham: No really I'll do it!
God: I'm not fuck kidding, don't do it!
Abraham: Here I go.
God: Now you're blind.

Jesus (God as a human on earth) never pulls any shit like that, he's basically a peaceful Jewish, buddhist for his time.

The fossil record can't show a smooth transition because not everything fossilizes and very small fossils like mice etc. are very hard to find/identify, which is why the hunt continues. It's not convenient by any means.

Extinction events, by their nature, can wipe out even the most fit species, leaving a distinctly new evolutionary path for PREVIOUSLY less fit organisms on a global scale.

One of the marvels of science is the ability to fix mistakes and move on, instead of never eating bacon.

To see evolution in action read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_moth#Evolution/

Any other "creative" ideas you'd like to vomit my way?

The further collecting of evidence will only solidify evolution in those with open minds, not those who BELIEVE evolution is trickery, which craft or a test by their god. Remember when God had to blind Abraham, just to stop one of His vain, egotistical tests that nearly lead to the death of an innocent person? Even God couldn't reason with a scared, intellectually primitive follower; too bad so many remain and propagate their ignorance.

For the record, nowhere does the bible (yes, I've read it) implicitly deny the idea of evolution, God simply doesn't bother to explain the laws of nature (to include math) to a bunch of sheep herders; like make sure your pork is cooked well done to kill the harmful stuff. If you can't accept evolution, then tell me how rain is made using only the word of God to refute science.

I despise the idea of a hate crime. Why is beating, killing or talking negatively to someone because they're gay, ethnic minority etc. any different than a heterosexual, white male engaging in a similar act against another heterosexual, white mail in the Unite States? Intentional is intentional regardless of personal differences/reasons. The laws should and should have treated murders, beatings, harassment etc. equally. Bigots, behind the bench and in juries handing down lenient sentences, are the reasons the class of "hate crimes" exists, not the nature of the crimes themselves. All murders are equal, but some murders are more equal than others.

In that act is also this little bit, for those of us who can't detect humans in the back seat after we turn the car off.

SEC. 31504. UNATTENDED PASSENGER REMINDERS.

        (a) Safety Research Initiative- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete research into the development of performance requirements to warn drivers that a child or other unattended passenger remains in a rear seating position after the vehicle motor is disengaged.

        (b) Specifications- In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider performance requirements that--

                (1) sense weight, the presence of a buckled seat belt, or other indications of the presence of a child or other passenger; and

                (2) provide an alert to prevent hyperthermia and hypothermia that can result in death or severe injuries.

        (c) Rulemaking or Report-

                (1) RULEMAKING- Not later than 1 year after the completion of each research and testing initiative required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to issue a Federal motor vehicle safety standard if the Secretary determines that such a standard meets the requirements and considerations set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of section 30111 of title 49, United States Code.

                (2) REPORT- If the Secretary determines that the standard described in subsection (a) does not meet the requirements and considerations set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary shall submit a report describing the reasons for not prescribing such a standard to--

                        (A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate; and

                        (B) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives.