You declared that Marxist would love net neutrality which proves a complete lack of understanding of both.
A Marxist would have no opinion on net neutrality at all. A Leninist would - and the Leninist would OPPOSE net neutrality on the basis that it still has private ISPs, to the Leninist the entire internet infrastructure would be run by the state only.
To an anarcho-socialist it would be ideally run by a consensus system with specialists appointed to manage things who are instantly recallable and can be replaced at any second if they no longer have the support of the vast majority of the people relying on it.
To a Stalinist the internet would be something to destroy as it's too hard to control what would be said.

And Marxism - the way a Marxist internet would work would entirely preclude the very idea of net neutrality. The internet would be a public commons (which is VERY different from a utility) managed more like a public park or a public library than an infrastructure in which private enterprise sells access, with no ISPs there would be no neutrality or lack thereoff to debate.

Now you can argue whether running the internet that way would work well, what sort of quality and innovation could or could not happen and there are valid debates to be had - but that changes nothing about the fact that Marxists CANNOT as you claim "love" net neutrality since to them - the idea is EQUALLY as anathema as it's absence.
They would oppose BOTH sides of the argument.

Oh -and the idea that you are obligated to sell a customer that which he actually paid for and keep the promises you made is the very foundation of Capitalism, attempts to do otherwise is known as fraud.

Even the most libertarian systems of thought still hold that one of the government's LEGITIMATE jobs is the prevention of fraudulent trade.

The entire concept has literally nothing to do with Marxism, which is NOT by the way the opposite of Capitalism, both are just two theories out of a gigantic spectrum of economic philosophies that exist, some of which have been tried over the years with varying degrees of success.
Ultimately the current success of capitalism is much more a political victory than a statement about it's success - it's no more successful than many of the abandoned ones and in some ways, much worse. It certainly is NOT any better than Marxism was - it fails equally spectacularly and in almost identical ways.

Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

You know nothing about Marxism. First learn what it ACTUALLY says, THEN you can try to critique it.

Net Neutrality bears no RESEMBLENCE to what you are describing in your post: it is simply an injunction that customers should get what they are PAYING for - which is unfettered access to the ENTIRE internet. Painting it as anything else is a lie.

Wow, in your entire post, literally the ONLY thing that isn't a complete falsehood is "This is the same entity that gave us the Broadcast Flag".

You have no idea what net neutrality is about, you have no idea what it means, and you clearly haven't got the foggiest IDEA what Marxism means.

>I can find plenty of astroturfing groups that are soros backed and do the same thing, but that doesn't make it "front page news."

Maybe it's because, mostly when liberal organisations fund something, it's something the majority of voters wanted anyway ?

Only if you can figure out what they are. Not all OS's used file extensions, not all extensions are easily recognizable today. And once you do you still need a legal copy of the software to put in that virtual machine. That may not be so easy to obtain if it hasn't been sold in decades.

I don't think this was the original story - but it's a pretty good example of the same thing:
http://www.sro.wa.gov.au/blogs...

I remember it was a slashdot story at the time. It sort of kick started the whole open data movement so we're talking early 2000's sometime.

ERM. As somebody who lives in Africa I should tell you there is NO religion that condones cutting girls clitorisses off. There are several CULTURES that do but they do so despite not because of their religious beliefs and quite a lot of them are Christian.
And as an American a country where male genital mutilation is an extremely common cultural practice despite being discouraged by your major religion this should not be hard for you to comprehend.

License fees here are evil because you as a taxpayer have to pay them and then to read a document from your government (which in many cases you are legally compelled to do: tax documents for example) you have to pay them again (since you aren't allowed to use the copy you and your fellow citizens collectively bought). At least when my taxes help pay for a road I get to drive on said road.

It happened in Australia a few years ago. Much of their data was in the format of an ancient word processor whose parent company was long bankrupt and which no available software could read.

I did read the entire post.
Experience does not change that YOU are not ABLE to judge whether you're reaction times are affected and to what degree - it's a biological impossibility.
No amount of experience will change that. It may change the degree of impact (an assertion you make while offering absolutely ZERO evidence to support it) but even if it did YOU are not qualified to determine that (about YOURSELF you can NEVER be qualified). Those people who study this sort of thing, you know scientifically, have consistently found that driving tired has the same or even worse impacts than driving drunk - and drunk people ALSO always think their driving ability isn't impaired - while thousands of dead innocent bystanders speak to the contrary.

The reality is that I read your entire post, and dismissed it with the sarcasm all of it deserved. You're a danger on the road, an irresponsible citizen and a future inmate on a charge of reckless endangerment and manslaughter.

Yes, I am absolutely certain that you are an unbiased judge of your own mental performance after 4 hours of driving.
I mean nobody else on earth is and study after study have shown that there is literally NOBODY worse at judging somebody's performance at anything than the person himself but I absolutely certain that you are, indeed, the sole exception that has ever existed.

Now what about all the people who are NOT you ?

>Like I said before, the fuel isn't the issue, it's the source of the fuel. Make that source zero CO2 and the need for EVs disappears.

You are aware that burning gasoline is a massive (I mean a SERIOUSLY masssive) source of CO2 in and off itself right ?

>>in my experience
>Your experience is different from my experience.

And THIS ladies and gentlenerds is why anecdotes are scientifically useless - because there is ALWAYS a counter-anecdote that says the exact opposite... ALWAYS.