No, not at all, and I'm fairly sure Comcast has not been.

Previously, Netflix had to go through a middleman to get to Comcast (Cogent, as well as Level 3 and others). They already had to pay those middlemen, and the connections they were getting to Comcast were increasingly congested, probably due to transit providers not wanting to pay for peering even if they were sending a lot more traffic in one direction than the other, and thus the other end not wanting to invest in additional infrastructure to handle that increased one-way traffic. This is typical, has been the standard practice for the life of the Internet, and has nothing to do with "Comcast vs Netflix" or "net neutrality" etc. Peering agreements are supposed to assume roughly equal traffic in both directions from both parties, otherwise the one causing the imbalance in traffic is expected to pay.

Now, Netflix are paying Comcast directly to cut out the middleman and get better, less-congested, direct connections. This means they don't have to pay the other transit providers for the traffic they'll now be sending directly to Comcast, AND it seems their payments to Comcast will be less than what they were paying Cogent et al for the same bandwidth.

So for Netflix, this is win-win: they can cut their bandwidth bill AND get better performance and less congestion streaming movies to Comcast customers. What's the problem?

Net neutrality is a real concern, but this particular case is not an example of it.

You'd be making a mistake then, because Netflix's total bandwidth bill just went DOWN with this arrangement. They were always paying for the traffic to Comcast (as they pay for traffic to everyone), only now they are paying Comcast less for a direct (and better-performing) connection to their network than they were previously paying Cogent, Level 3, et al for more indirect (and increasingly congested and poor-performing), connections to Comcast's network.

Net neutrality is a real issue, but this is not an example of it, it's just Internet infrastructure working as it always has and as it's intended to.

Previously, Netflix did not have a direct peering arrangement with Comcast, so they paid Cogent and others for transit to Comcast.

Now, they have arranged to directly connect their network to Comcast (which was NOT the case before), and, since they are not supplying the roughly equal traffic in both directions typical of "no-pay" peering agreements, they have agreed to pay Comcast for this arrangement.

What they are paying Comcast for direct peering appears to be LESS than what they were paying Cogent et al previously for transit to Comcast... And they have a more direct, and presumably better performing, set of connections now.

This is a win-win for everyone, and has nothing to do with net neutrality. It's a simple arrangement to implement more direct and lower-cost traffic relaying.

I guess the $GDPs are the only thing that matters? That's nice to know, it won't be a problem once all the people of the world are gone, leaving only the $GDPs behind to enjoy the mess.

Voting inside the US is useless too. Do you seriously think the US is still a functioning democracy at the federal level?

Then the IOC (and NBC, etc.) should reimburse the US and other governments for the costs for that security. They're the one putting on the event, hyping it up, selling the tickets, they should pay for its costs.

As a cord-cutter, I simply decided I have no interest in watching anything that I'm getting snubbed from. I'm too busy anyway, it's a great excuse not to be watching TV. If it eventually shows up on Netflix, I might eventually watch it (but in the case of the Olympics, probably not). Otherwise, I don't care and it might as well not be happening. I didn't watch the Super Bowl, and I won't be watching the Olympics, and frankly, despite years of religiously thinking I always needed to watch major events like these, I don't miss either in the slightest. (Or the Grammys/Oscars, etc.)

If I'm curious about the ads from the Super Bowl, I can watch them on YouTube, if I don't get bludgeoned with them over and over for the next year anyway. (So far I don't care enough to even look, but isn't it sad that the commercial advertisements are like 10x more interesting than the actual event? Oh wait, the ads ARE the event, the whole reason they want you to watch, like with all television, it's just the Super Bowl is the only place that's made blatantly obvious...)

There's a lot more useful in jQuery than just covering up browser differences, but sure, writing for a single platform definitely eases some of the pain of writing and testing jQuery-less Javascript.

Such as what? Well sure, you can write your web apps in C using G-WAN if sheer performance is your primary concern, as opposed to PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, Java, C#, etc. But there's a reason people moved from C to other languages: quite simply, developer time is waaaaay more expensive than server time for all but the heaviest uses. (On the other hand, Node.js is very fast for high concurrency transactions and can cut server costs as a result, so you can have both.)

From this statement it seems you don't know much about NodeJS or why it exists. One thing that's different is that Node.js IS the server, and its pervasively asynchronous, non-blocking, event-driven IO is not something other web servers or language ecosystems offer. JavaScript is a good match for that kind of programming, there are many developers with experience in asynchronous JavaScript programming from the web front end (not all of whom are completely stupid), and Google's V8 engine (which compiles to machine code) is not exactly slow. People are using Node because it is faster than other web backends for transactional responses with high concurrency - AND it happens to be easy to develop for too, compared to, say, Java (at least according to PayPal and others working with it).

It is certainly not anything like ASP.

FTFY.

Exit relays are trickier to host than just normal relays, because they're the ones police will come asking about when (probably not if) they discover something of interest came from it or was requested by it.

Indeed. But if you read the case study linked from here, you'll see that a major Target initiative over the past decade has been centralizing all of their internal systems, from inventory to pharmacy to in-store security to point-of-sale, into a single physical server per store running Microsoft Server 2008 and Hyper-V virtualization. Furthermore, the virtualization, OSes (some are AIX) and applications are all maintained and updated centrally, not by anyone physically in each store. (Target employs local contractors for in-store installation and maintenance.)

Thus, anyone who is able to access the central source for updates could compromise every IT function running in all Target stores.

The phrase "With Adobe Flash" that starts the review is orthogonal to the book and its content, which never anywhere mentions either "Adobe" or "Flash" as far as I can tell, and is unrelated to the rest of the review. The whole thing would be far better if it just started with "It’s possible to quickly get a pretty web site up and running", despite the somewhat awkward wording, since it's got everyone off on an unrelated tangent. (Neither of the words "Adobe" or "Flash" are found by an Amazon "search within this book", in the Table of Contents or Index of the book, or in a search of the free first-chapter PDF linked in the review.)

The review submitted here is identical to a customer review by the same person on Amazon. It's not bad as customer reviews go, aside from the irrelevant lead-in mentioning Flash, which is now thankfully dead for delivering actual content on most websites. Since this is one of many web content strategy books available, in addition to related books on user experience, usability and information architecture, I'm not sure how newsworthy it is, though prompting clients to think seriously about content strategy, etc. is definitely something all web designers, developers and project managers should be doing, as there are still far too many pretty(-ish) sites lacking readable, useful, or well-organized content.

How do we know that's what they are SUPPOSED to be doing? Did they ever ask us if that's what we wanted them to be doing?

So? Neither do any other salary figures you see anywhere. Did you think private-sector salaries you hear about were after taxes and health insurance and 401k deductions? Seriously, sometimes the paycheck amount is literally only 50% of the total salary "paid" during that pay period.