If you look at the companies supporting net neutrality, almost every one has a fiscal incentive to do so. In short, you're wrong. It's greed all around. We, the people, just happen to be on the winning side.

Mod parent up

Pratchett said it best:

“I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.”

Uh, yeah, gonna need some proof for those claims of side effects. Contrary to what you express, vasectomies are fairly safe and effective. http://theturekclinic.com/serv... And as it stands, the female pill has a number of nasty potential side effects, far beyond anything a vasectomy could do.

Hmm, that sounds suspiciously like the IT support I do every day.

You mean everything the 'evil' companies already do but don't give us decent speeds, try to cap our bandwidth, and charge us too much for the hassle?

Shut up AC and dammit Google, take my money!

'Overpriced unreliable internet is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America'

that ISIL rebrand itself as Cobra and that all grunt soldiers be sent to the Star Wars Trooper School of Shooting. Lasers should be colored in accordance with affiliation.

I consider it good policy that I don't rate countries or companies based on profitability

From my perspective, there's only one question worth asking. "On average, are they better to work for?"

The fix is almost certainly going to be as problematic as no doubt they'll make it harder to change the name like requiring admin rights or having some sort of language filter. The former is more likely and naturally the result will be 'and Comcast has been screwing up the spelling of my name for six months, 3 supervisors promised to fix it, and yet here we are!'

No, it really is quite dependent on biology. There are numerous studies on twins that clearly show that it's governed by far more than just calories in == calories out. http://www.gatsby.ucl.ac.uk/~p... , http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05...

http://arlohemphill.com/2011/08/10/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/

I'm baffled. I don't understand the impetus to deny human-driven climate change other than straight up greed. The one argument I've heard recited is the lack of an accurate model. I can barely get an accurate weather forecast for a week from now and you want accuracy with something on the time scale of decades.

And at the end of the day, even if the models are inaccurate, it's not a question of whether it's happening but simply time frame. What difference does it make if they're off by a decade or two? Does that give us time to squander? Let me answer that. No. I think Vonnegut probably got it right. "We could have saved it [earth], but we were too goddamned cheap."

You're just jealous of my awesome rocket-car. It has pretty colors and stickers.

Whoa, wait, what? Short of attributing this to inventions necessary for space travel, I don't see how this could possibly be true. Proof please.

I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that until you insert two bitcoins.

Actually, the scary thing is the internet companies and the Koch brothers stuffed the 'ballet boxes' AND that is going to be trotted out as the will of the people (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/16/one-group-dominates-the-second-round-of-net-neutrality-comments/).