Unscrupulous companies will sometimes engage in reverse-astroturfing, where they hire a bunch of folks to post bad reviews of their competitors.

That's called "libel" and it's been illegal forever.

Posting fake positive reviews is immoral, but legal. Posting fake negative reviews can get your ass hauled into court, and paying for every cent of damage your actions did to the target, multiplied by whatever factor the judge likes...

We told her she couldn't do that and was meant for families. So we started putting limit signs. She would then start sending in her kids to get more.

Who you MEANT for an item to be sold to is irrelevant. If I want to buy tampons to use as insulation in my walls, I don't expect an argument. It's not like the customers are the ones who set the prices on the items you're selling, YOU did that, and are complaining that it didn't work out quite the way you WANTED it to. You can try coupons, with lots of terms and conditions to put limits on such things, but at the end of the day, the best solution is just to price items properly. Hell, that's Walmart's slogan, and they're not exactly at a loss to get customers in the store, or having problems turning a profit.

After so much hassle and constantly running out of product annoying others customers, the owner banned her and her family from the store

Sounds like you could have made lots of money off of her, by not keeping prices quite so artificially low. You knew there would be huge demand, so having larger stocks before your sale would be a pretty obvious solution, too.

you shouldn't get away with using "broadband" as a term unless "broad" really is an applicable adjective

"broad" has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how fast the connection is. I could have a communications link using an extremely wide range of frequencies, and still have very slow internet. The opposite of "broad" is "base", and baseband connections happen to be far, far faster.

You may be thinking of wideband, but that's a different term all-together, and not really applicable, because communications can indeed be sped-up considerably without increasing the bandwidth.

We should have been working hard at improving nuclear power, and solving its problems, to the point that this would, by now, be a no-brainer.

The US Navy has been all-in with Nuclear power. R&D has been non-stop. If they haven't "solved its problems", it's unlikely throwing even more money at it, would do so.

It's also unclear why you feel entitled to make everyone use the Internet the same way you do.

Umm... shouldn't you be saying that exact same thing to the FCC? They're the ones pushing the minimum speeds, with a decent number of customers who don't need it, and sure don't want to subsidize the upgrades for those customers who do.

Broadband didn't use to mean "an Internet connection", but rather "really fast Internet connection".

Maybe we should update the term "dial-up" to be a minimum of 10Mbps? Dial-up used-to mean blazing fast, back when I got my USR 56K modem. Adjusted for todays usage, 56K back then might be 10Mbps today.

So:

dial-up==10Mbps

It makes no sense for rates in downtown Philadelphia to be high because there is a lot of empty land in Arizona.

Unless, say, there's something like a Universal Service fee, that subscribers in Philadelphia have to pay into, and pays to build infrastructure in Arizona... Then, maybe, it just might make sense.

DOS Lynx only works on a 386 or better, which you could get to run an old Linux or Minix OS instead of crippled-old DOS.

DOS Lynx is also not very faithful to the original.

For DOS web browsing, you really want Bobcat:
http://www.fdisk.com/doslynx/b...

ELKS would give you 16-bit Linux, but you'd really have to be willing to take over development, as it really doesn't have any apps to go with it.

If two people are watching HQ videos (netflix, youtube, etc), that's easily 8-10mbps *minimum*. Figure the other two are listening to music and playing online games and maybe you have a guest who is using skype or something... bandwidth just doesn't go very far in today's world, unless you're living like it's still the late 90s as far as your entertainment consumption and communication.

Yeah, you're a dammed primitive if you stream videos in less than 4K!

You've thrown-out all your DVDs by now, haven't you? They're only 480p, if you're lucky, you cave man, you...

Meanwhile, 16:9 480p looks pretty good on my 40" HDTV, and Hulu streams it in DVD quality at 750Kbps (works at 500Kbps, too, if you don't mind some artifacts)... At that rate, 5 people could be streaming different videos *simultaneously* on your "late 90s" internet connection, with headroom for other stuff at the same time.

And personally, that sounds like a nightmare of a family life to me... This may not be the 50s, but everyone alone in their rooms, watching their own HDTVs, all-day, every-day (has to be *simultaneous*, remember?), nobody watching things together, nobody out doing any other activities, etc.

4/1 is sufficient for my 2 year old daughter, my dead grandmother, and my cat who mostly just wants to chase the mouse around the screen. Pretty much everyone ELSE in the house wants more than that.

I work in IT, and I don't really want that much speed.

I was happy with Time Warner's 2Mbps service for $15/mo. when I was in their service area. And with that, I was working from home quite often, streaming Hulu no problem, etc. I hear Netflix does a crap job of encoding and needs much more bandwidth, but since they don't support Linux, I've never been interested. I hear lots of people complaining about ultra-high-def, but I'm pretty happy with SD for my on-demand viewing, as long as it's 16:9.

I'm not in their service area anymore (and if Comcast buys them it'll double the price to match theirs), and all the cheapest wired internet services in my area start at $30/month. I'd love to get cheaper DSL, but FIOS deployment means they will no longer sell it.

I get much higher speeds for the money, which I don't use for anything except for torrents finishing before I can blink. I could see the advantages for a house full up with a big family, but otherwise it's just a pissing contest, like the top-speed of your sports car that's always stuck in traffic... And its an ongoing waste of money every month that I'd rather have in my pocket.

Give anyone 4 mbps connection who is living in an area that still has dialup as their only option, and ask them if its broadband. If someone works to bring 4/1 mbps connections to more areas, they should be able to advertise it as broadband.

Funny thing is, thanks to the FCC you can advertise your single-mode Fiber and Ethernet connections as "broadband" even though they're actually baseband technologies.

Meanwhile, you CAN'T call your cable / DSL internet service "broadband" when it's less than 4Mbps, even though they're both decidedly broadband communications technologies.

On the plus side, you're free to advertise your 1Mbps DSL connection as "high-speed" and "blazing fast", because the FCC doesn't regulate those terms... You just can't call it broadband (even though it is).

Ignorance is not a counter-argument.

The people buying Tesla can afford to pay the full price.

I "can afford to pay the full price" of a Tesla, but I NEVER, EVER would. Supply/demand is a curve. Raise the price of a Tesla by 10%, you'll see a significant decline in sales, even if every single one of their customers "could" afford to pay more. "can afford to pay" is only relevant when it comes to life-or-death matters, not anywhere that there are options.

we should be reimbursing the purchase of bicycles. EVs don't help the environment, they just destroy less of it. Bicycles have even less impact.

There's nothing magic about bicycles. If I put a battery and electric motor on my bicycle, do I still get green cred? How is that not a motorcycle?

Rain might be a nuisance... How about a fully enclosed 4-wheel bicycle? Good? Still okay if I add an electric motor onto it?

You actually can't say adding an efficient motor is bad... But human power is terribly inefficient. For the distance covered, it's vastly more environmentally friendly to generate the electricity needed than to produce the food your body very inefficiently converts to energy. Burn the food in an engine, and you'll get far more work out of it! If human power was better, the industrial revolution would have involved millions of men on hamster wheels...

The later are the natural conclusion of increasing fuel efficiency standards, anyhow.

the people buying Tesla can afford to pay the full cost. Why are we subsidizing luxury cars for the higher wage earners?

Because there's no carbon/pollution tax, so subsidizing zero-emission vehicles is the flip side of the coin, paying them back just a little bit for the savings in health care costs from zero-emissions vehicles, that will be spread over a large population.

Encouraging the early adopters also helps quickly get the production costs falling, which, in a few years, will help the rest of us to afford to buy EVs.

There's no denying Tesla has done a hell of a lot to stimulate EV production. The money Tesla is paying to Li-Ion battery manufacturers is helping to get higher capacities developed quickly... And by that I mean: faster than "Moore's Law" improvements. The Chevy Volt came out after GM looked at Tesla and got scared of being left in the dust by the upstart. And before the Tesla Roadster debuted in 2007, most hybrids and EV were using NiMH batteries... Afterwards, only the Prius kept using them, while every other new vehicle quickly switched to Li-Ion.

And those subsidizes are not specific to Tesla. You can buy a much cheaper plug-in hybrid or a shorter-range EV like the popular Nissan Leaf, and get thousands in tax credits on it.

Oddly enough, MP3 players aren't using up any more resources today than they did 4 years ago, so no.

And being that this phone runs Gingerbread, yeah, some of the newest apps won't be available.