The telecoms aren't by decent entrepreneurs today and thus don't play by the same rules.

They, in fact, make their own rules with lobby power... including the ones to remove your ability to say what you just said. Or really. being pro-corporations, you would be fine. I could be blocked for my views. Some day you may be against corporations for something else and could be blocked. Extreme, yes, but without restoring the regulation that has gotten us to the point we are at (ahem.... WITH NET NEUTRALITY), this has become a possibility.

Are you really arguing that not having referees at a sports game is better because it frees players to kill each other? That's not a game, that's something else entirely. Rules are there to keep things sane. Not over regulate, which you seem to be confusing with my view. There are just enough rules in chess to keep things structured but not over burden. Net Neutrality was not a burden and we got many many great things out of it. This doesn't seem to be a part of your value equation but is a part of mine and many other geeks out there.

Your argument doesn't address the reality that net neutrality creates jobs at least in the instance of that large telecom merger a few years ago. You don't need studies to show what affect it had. People lost their jobs, and customers got slower service due to the lack of build out. Your argument also doesn't address the overwhelming political power held by telecom oligopolies or their "donations".

To me, the only incentive to not having net neutrality is more money for the telecoms. Do you have evidence otherwise? Or do you just have some corporate study to back your understanding? Personal experience also counts.

Small business would have to start paying to play on the internet. This would cost small businesses a lot of money to pay for internet tolls. That's money that could be creating jobs if there were net neutrality. Forcing telecoms to build out their infrastructure would actually create jobs. It wasn't until the net neutrality contractual obligation of a large telecom merger ran out that they stopped building infrastructure and fired the masses of people working on the build out.

Also crazy is the cost of anti-competitive behavior, the cost of innovative ideas being squashed because they didn't fit the business model of the telecoms, and enabling corporations to be the enforcers of freedom of speech is just plain unconstitutional and is just an abrogation of the responsibility of Congress and Whitehouse.

I'd rather pay slightly higher prices to enable innovation, freedom of speech, equality of information, and decrease the power of the oligopolies.

Call me crazy but the intangibles tip that balance for me. There is more to life than money like freedom and liberty.

Of course this report isn't going to discuss these things... it was funded by large corporations. They don't value anything but money.

I, for one, welcome our new square overlords. It'll give the "religious circles" a run for their money. I can see how the religious circles would be irked by the homo-erotic behavior of four squares vs a normal single square married to a traditional acute triangle. Then again, it's also much less dangerous as the known dangers of being stabbed to death on a daily basis don't exist. /flatland-humor

Just wait till someone patents patenting.

User Error: Fixed by pressing play again to unpause.

Maybe this should be a part of the standard. HTML5 anyone? It's usage would be instant and 100% saturated in the market (mainly because you are banned from using it). You then describe in the standard that is the canadian linking which the law refers to. Then you redefine as being some synonym of "link." Problem solved, eh?

We can finally assign an IP address to every atom on the Earth. That should take care of things. At the rate the Earth is collecting space dust though we would run out of IPv6 addresses on May 4th 2022. Time for IPv8. We can base it on veggie juice.

Do something about it, personally. You can even do it tonight! Turn off the TV. I did over a decade ago and haven't regretted it since!

Is the practice of paying others to write reviews of your app banned? Is paying them to write only 5 star reviews banned? My thoughts are that if this practice isn't specifically banned, how can you just knock a developer completely out? Maybe a warning and removal of all "paid" comments would be better and then if they continued doing it, then ban them? This one strike rule is highly confrontational in nearly all places. It doesn't do justice to humanity: to err is human. If you don't fix your erring ways, then i can understand such force against that one individual. (things like illegal downloads, and turning off the internet b/c of it is highly problematic for many reasons. One is that it restricts the family members or others in the place as well who haven't done anything). Regardless, requiring one to be non-human is very degrading.

And I thought a PC had 1/4 of a processor (at least the way Windows runs on it)

Except when third party twitter apps expose your private tweets to your public stream... or that twitter then has a detailed account of your money.

If functions can now be data passed around as variables, doesn't this reduce the security of an application? Granted, you don't need to use blocks but i can envision a future world where internet server software is written heavily in blocks. What if a block makes it's way into the system from the outside world? Its the same thing as a code injection hack but this technology could potentially make it much more simple to do that. Yet another security concern.

Given the new-ness of the technology it seems like some of these security issues need to be worked out... patterns developed and such.

This technology strikes me as a solution for user experience issues and not bullet proofed for server solutions. I may be wrong.

When they say that you need to hand it over, couldn't you give them the encryption the encryption key with a second key? Then when they ask for THAT key, you encryt that second key with a third key. etc etc. Could this postpone giving them any info ever at all?

IOW. Does the law say anything about the format of the encryption key?