"of course there will be a few exceptionally talented black swans that show up from time to time. these are exceptions to the rule."

AKA Champions. If you aren't an exceptionally talented black swan you aren't a champion and shouldn't be called one. First, if you can't win the game on a level playing field with all genders and weight classes, you aren't really a champion. Second, assuming girls could never do this is highly sexist. Third, if you genuinely believe girls can't do this, then propping them up artificially to have a higher number encouraged to compete seems counterproductive. If they can't win, they shouldn't be wasting their lives trying to perform tasks they aren't very well equipped to do but instead shown champions in areas where males tend to fall down in a fair, even, and not segregated competition.

How is it any less sexist if they retain "all-women" competitions?

"Rationally, I have to think that when one service provider represents 10% or more of the traffic on a given network they should be doing something to address it, and the responsibility really falls on their shoulders and not the ISP."

I disagree. The reason being that the 10% has been paid for by the people watching those streams. What difference should it make to my ISP how I use my bandwidth. I paid for it.

"Second, how does that support your restaurant analogy? Bandwidth is finite. How do you define "artificially slow down delivery" in a world of finite bandwidth and complex and continually changing network topologies? So Hulu and Netflix have to have the same performance to every customer? No matter what the physical network layout is between server and user?"

That isn't what is going on here though. There is a big difference between the connection coincidently only be so fast between point A and B and an ISP saying, oh a competing video service is at A, so no, don't follow our normal procedure and upgrade the infrastructure at that point. Or even worse, a competitor is at A, so reduce memory or misconfigure the router leading to them. Or still worse, lets install something to actively detect traffic going to our competitor and slow it down.

Netflix pays for it's bandwidth. I pay for my bandwidth. My common carrier better be prioritizing everything I want to access via MY connection equally. Threatening to invisibly slow down Netflix to first create the illusion that Netflix isn't paying for their bandwidth and second raise the costs of a competitors service is unethical and should be illegal and in a REAL free market we would have 20 places to take our business to go around it.

At the very least if companies aren't required to obey net neutrality regulations they should lose all common carrier protections since they aren't offering a content neutral pipe anymore.

You don't fix bad data with software. You just express how you're going to make due with what you have.

You carry personal computers everywhere you go. It's not a matter of capacity, but collective will.

The planet where the elite want you to talk about chasing the wrong dream, and I'm fighting against that influence in every debate on this subject.

Am I the only one who thinks this is cool as hell, and wants this made open access for all?

Why is it ALWAYS with the fear mongering about the privacy you already don't have, and no one ever talks about the better decisions we could be making if everyone knew what the elite already know?

Sensor networks are interesting for their potential to tell us things we'd never think to ask. About ourselves.

Quit trying to hide like cowards and chase the power to watch the watchers, you mis'rble bastards!

It's not actually the government asshatry that concerns me. I mean it's not cool but it isn't going away... ever. But a government needs a healthy fear of it's citizens and a government that isn't afraid of the rabble is a terrible and frightening thing indeed. So yes, I for one do welcome a return to the government hiding in shadows doing illicit things when opposed to one that feels its citizens are powerless and it can openly do illicit things.

It's people who don't understand that government must fear the common man who support measures to disarm the people.

P.S. The whole hoarding bitcoins thing is a myth. Deflationary economies work the same way inflationary economies work the pressure is just in another place. Deflation is a built in wage increase for workers. Everyone's money being worth more is more temptation to spend it because prices get lower and lower. But while prices get lower and lower companies have to continue to pay workers the same amount.

This is partially offset by their cost for materials going down but bottom line is that companies will need to increase sales to keep up. Luckily for companies, everyone makes more than before because their salary of 1 BTC/week is worth more so they can afford more, so consumption goes up.

The confusion comes from people who have bought into the idea that the economy is driven by investors. Never believe this, it's nonsense used to justify people who do nothing but add interest, increase prices, and/or reduce the quality (aka cost of production) of goods and services to "realize value" and thus make money without contributing to the economy but rather by detracting to it. Often these try to take credit for and/or mask their efforts by blending in with actual technology improvements.

The economy is driven by workers (Production) and consumers (Consumption). All value in the economy comes from workers, technology improvements for instance are the work output of engineers and researchers. Consumers purchase goods and services, goods remain part of the economy and have innate value and service availability has an innate value and the output of the service may have a value as well. Consumers generally spend pretty much everything they make.

If you must obsess over middle men (investors, lenders, salesmen, etc) then you should realize that these people want other people's money. Banks don't lend to beat inflation, banks lend to charge an interest rate that is their profit+inflation. With a deflationary system lenders can simply exclude the inflation number since the payback will be in deflated dollars and the interest deflates too. How much interest can they charge? Dunno, but it will be as much as the market will allow and so it should amount to at least the same amount of increased buying power as loans now.

"Sure it is."

No, actually it's not. They screen every donation in the US as well, that's why they have a questionnaire to eliminate high risk groups. I imagine in Canada the people doing those tests are on state salaries and would be sitting around getting paid regardless. In the US the non-profit donation driven organizations collecting blood have to pay third party labs on a per test basis. Generally those organizations run out of money to collect and screen donations before they run out of willing blood donors. It makes absolutely no sense for them to take blood from high risk groups, have more collected donations fail, and therefore have a higher cost per usable pint of blood.

All investment carries risk. High risk carries high reward but you should moderate how much you put into a high risk store like Bitcoin. Of course, bitcoin will stabilize dramatically as volume increases.

But as the market grows there will be more transactions and therefore more fees generated without actually increasing them.

Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."

So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.