Well yes, of course TODAY, 150GB or a 250GB seems perfectly reasonable. But imagine if ISPs had put up caps in 1998 of 100 GB. You would have thought, oh, over dialup I could NEVER use that amount of data, yet by your own post, your family probably uses over 100GB per month right now.

I don't know what the cost is to ISPs right now for providing "unlimited" bandwidth. But the way I see it, what's happening is, they are positioning themselves so that at the point where streaming ALL your TV shows over the internet becomes feasible, through licensing agreements and networks moving online, they want to make it economically difficult for you to transition from "TV, Telephone and Internet", to just "Telephone and Internet".

How else do you explain that AT&T will not include your TV watching in its 250GB Internet caps? They're using the same infrastructure to deliver both services.

M

your reply was more than 140 characters. u just proved his point re: twitter.

I know that sounds weird, but if anyone can figure out how to put a keyboard on an exercise bike, it's this community.

well played sir

The main problems that the internet cannot deal with yet:

1) Reliable news-gathering for overseas or far away places

2) Reputable sources like the NYTimes or The Washington Post

Admittedly, after a while, some online newspapers/blogs will gain credibility.

The way I read Posner's post, he isn't talking about sites like Slashdot that take a snippet and link to the appropriate source.

He is talking about sites that will copy wholesale the content of another site (i.e. myblog.com copies nytimes.com) or will summarize the entire article of the other websites.

I agree with you that sites like Slashdot actually benefit the press.

I agree. The TechCrunch post is shrill and doesn't address the central issue that Posner presents: How do you maintain a free press when free-riders can inexpensively and quickly copy and redistribute your original content? He raises a valid point and the TechCrunch completely sidesteps it.

It's actually the job of the people to defend the Constitution. We're here to keep the Government in check.

The Sudanese government does have OVERWHELMING superiority, and they are using it to destroy a population group. Anyway, we're arguing over a matter of degree. I think we can both agree that Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide both really suck hardcore. gum2me