Your claim that printing money to have the government spend doesn't affect the poor or middle class is ludicrous. The inflation this causes affects the poor and the middle class quite a bit. And if interest rates ever go up again this house of cards (debt) will come crashing down on us all.

Yes there has been stagnation in the rate of increase. The rate of change in not increasing. As the gp post states, increasing rate of change is the definition of a positive feedback loop. Right now warming due to carbon dioxide is being seen, but a positive feedback loop is not.

You got one thing right. The state is evil. And by state I mean the government itself, not Wyoming per se.

If, in order to solve this problem, the liberty and freedom of the people in Wyoming to run their own lives and government needs to be sacrificed, then I will never agree with your "solution" to this problem.

If we must give our liberty in order to survive, then count me as your enemy. What good is life without liberty?

Oh and your all powerful government you require to solve this problem, if it's at all like all the all powerful governments that have come before, it'll have to destroy the environment in order to save it.

I think its fun to watch a company that built its fortune on tiny margins move into a industry that has enormous customer hostile margins.

Google is going to fucking destroy the big ISPs everywhere they go. Its good to see them fearing for their survival, because the big ISPs are truly evil.

And here is the greatest irony. Self-driving cars, if widely adopted, will save THOUSANDS of lives, but its the edge cases like this that will slow our ability to have this new technology because lawyers are salivating at the potential to sue Google because a tiny number of their autonomous cars will face unavoidable crashes.

Wish I had some mod points. Well said.

No, they only have to say they're throttling their own services the same way they throttle dropbox.

Just like they say they're spending all those government fees they've taken in to improve their service, when they're really just pocketing them.

I'm guessing because half is better than none and that this fix addresses the evil that the big ISPs are doing right now.

Initially I thought that might not be true because tape will still be linear and you would still need to move it past the read heads.

But, if you work to make the read heads (and the tape) wider you could still have the same velocity of tape, but write more data (on top of the more data you're writing because of density increases) and actually achieve very good throughput.

Thats too true.

The margins that the big ISPs operate at are obscene.

The "EVIL" oil companies make billions on tiny margins, around 8%.

The are article quotes nearly 40% margins for the big ISPs. This is a sign of a monopoly market, of collusion, of protective government regulation, basically is a sign that the big ISPs are really really fucking evil.

It a true market a 40% margin would not stand.

The FCC needs to either work for the citizens of this country and make the internet common carrier, or they might as well disband. Outside of making the internet common carrier, almost every action they are taking is as bad than doing nothing at all.

What I love about this is the focus on the fact that the poor don't have smartphones.

From the administration perspective, if they don't have smartphones, then how the hell is the NSA going to track them? This problem needs to be solved.

Personally, looking at Tesla, how the company is run and the products they make, I predict that within the next 20 years Tesla will sell more cars per year than Mercedes.

Yeah, we should go back to the Fairness Doctrine, that requires BOTH sides of every issue to be covered.

I find it massively insulting that we are consistently led to believe that issues only ever have TWO solutions. The structure of the Fairness Doctrine reveals its fatal flaw, and in fact the fatal flaw of American Democracy today; that we're all supposed to line up behind one of TWO teams.

The Fairness Doctrine was an evil impediment to free speech, as far as I'm concerned it should never return.

There is the concept that the fact that she knows what the NSA did and how they operate would be a valuable thing for a company like Dropbox to know.

Its like how a coach for one team leaves to go to another team, they bring with them the knowledge of the plays and schemes that their previous team employed.