Now I demand that McDonalds, Burger King, Carls Jr, and all the small business delis in the western hemisphere pay me royalties.

There's more to it than that. You're not supposed to hold your hand in front of your face and make fine movements for long periods of time. You're supposed to have your elbows pointed mostly downward with your wrists mostly parallel to the floor; the further up you lift them the more you're going to injure yourself with repetitive usage of fine motor skills.

Big media: quit saying "XYZ is dead" every time you're starved for attention.

No matter how good a smartphone gets, that doesn't mean that old technology people still benefit from should suddenly disappear. My phone has a built-in keyboard; I can text so fast it startles people and any flashy features my phone doesn't have would be all the better with it. Give us more functionality, not tell us we should settle for less.

Web 1.0: some guy uploads content, everyone else just watches quietly as if it were TV.

Web 2.0: some guy uploads a set of scripts, which receive and display content passed contributed by end users.

The big money takeover is just a fact of life. All of the older media had their own time before big money; just because George Lucas can top the charts by passing gas into a microphone doesn't mean the common producer can't make his own movies.

Well it hasn't. This is akin to you living in the country, me reading a list of what you ate for dinner and watched on TV that night, and Mugabe spinning that as atrocious treason worthy of capital punishment. I may have been a jerk, but Mugabe is the one to blame for these actions.

Blame the transgressors. This shouldn't be some fringe extremist concept.

It doesn't necessarily mean that what Tsvangirai is doing is illegal or immoral. Mugabe is just misrepresenting information and using it to fuel his own propaganda machine. Wikileaks isn't at fault either; they're not passing judgment on anyone.

It seems like what is happening here is that Tsvangirai is trying to cooperate with 'western' governments, and Mugabe is painting this as an evil action which needs to be stopped.

Microsoft has had every opportunity to establish themselves as the Robin Hood of the group who charges into battle with the vendors to protect the users.

Microsoft's own market dominance is built on giving the vendors everything they want, as well as restricting the users' ability to break away from MS products. It's not about whether you choose Windows or an alternative, it's whether you can swim hard enough to beat the current that drags you down to Windows. I don't mean to hop on some bandwagon of hatred here, but don't expect MS to be the hero for the little guy in the face of this mass corporate takeover.

This isn't about regulating the internet, it's about preventing private regulation; if you hate people telling you what you can and cannot do then you should support preventing ISPs from being able to decide how your connection can be used.

As long as people are tied to their service providers then they're at the provider's mercy unless it is illegal to impose such controls. "Regulating the internet" would be telling users what to do; that's exactly what would happen if ISPs could shape traffic and they wouldn't have to release you from your contract.

Let's all have one big group prayer that this method of creating a human-like face doesn't end up becoming the property of some patent troll.

Maybe the big players in the market will realize that allowing private ownership of the idea of 1s and 0s was not such a great idea after all.

Then the lobbyists who once bribed congress for tougher IP laws will change their tune and then the rest of us can have a more liberated market to do business with.

A denial of service attack means launching junk traffic at a site to temporarily monopolize its serving capacity and thus deny the service to legitimate users; the service can resume as soon as the cannons stop firing.

Censorship means using force to permanently remove suppress something as a means of dictating what is and isn't allowed.

As we've learned with the recent round of attacks in the news, the effects are brief and leave no long-term impact on the targets.

The threat to free speech isn't DDoS, it's censorship.

The FCC doesn't "control" the internet. It is merely prohibiting ISPs from controlling their customers' access to the internet. The electric company sells you electricity, they don't get to tell you how you can and can't use it - that's the nature of net neutrality.

In an environment of "the customer is always right," the market can be trusted to deliver exactly what is in the customers' best interests without any form of outside interference.

In an environment of telco monopolies, multi-year contracts, terms which the provider can change at will, and more; it becomes necessary to restrict what providers can and cannot do because the customers are left powerless other than as voters who tell the government what they want.

Every week or so we have another "XYZ is dead" article.

I've come to think this is simply what magazines, bloggers, or corporate know-nothings resort to when they're starved for attention.