Yes, that's true. However, I wonder why this comment is usually directed at the working classes, when they are the ones upon whom the warfare is being waged. The rich have been conducting class warfare in the US since the Reagan administration, and they are now beginning to reap what they have sown.

I now make more than twice what my father earned at the height of his career in the early 80's, but I have less actual purchasing power. Rotten economics indeed.

I, along with many other Slashdotters, am employed as a software developer. The ONLY permissible work space is an office with a door. Failing that, allow us to work from home.

Yes, I do need to communicate with other people to get my job done. However, I also often need to concentrate for an uninterrupted block of time. The only way to accomplish this is to shut people out of my workspace.

The problem is, changing over to pay-as-you-go won't necessarily increase revenue for telecom or cable companies. I suspect that when the consumer pays a fixed cost per unit bandwidth, we'll find that demand for bandwidth is fairly elastic. Instead of paying more to maintain their current bandwidth usage, most people will cut back on their usage. Which, despite what the telecom companies tell the politicians, is the last thing they want. Rather, they want people to pay more while still maintaining their demand for bandwidth. The "our networks can't handle it" is merely the pretext under which they drag their feet on infrastructure upgrades while protesting "if we only had more money..." in order to perpetuate constant fee increases. If upgrading their infrastructure would increase revenue, they would have done it already.

The answer should be obvious: if they want this, they need to support the ability of the FCC to enforce Net Neutrality.

What?! What does this have to do with Net Neutrality? It's simple:

Customer: We want Net Neutrality regulations to ensure a true free market!
Telco: No! You cannot tell us how to manage traffic on our networks! Regulation is BAD!

but suddenly the shoe is on the other foot...

Telco: We need regulation to protect the network! Regulation is GOOD!
Customer: You need to manage your network better! You shouldn't make this a less free market to solve technical issues!

This is what the "Net Neutrality" debate is really all about. All of the other things that have been held up as "Net Neutrality" are red herring thrown out by the telecom companies to muddy the water and stall meaningful debate (and I think their strategy is working very well indeed).

Everyone has seen the high bandwidth requirements coming for at least a decade. The telecom companies have seized on this as their moment to secure their dynasty. They absolutely will not upgrade the infrastructure to support the future until they have guarantees (codified in law, if they have their way) that they can continue raping their customers in perpetuity.

Or perhaps you really believed what your corporate overlords told you: that the election that just happened had to do with "fiscal responsibility" and nothing at all to do with deregulation, lower corporate taxes, and the repeal of laws that are unpopular with corporations.

So by your logic, I shouldn't get the flu vaccine this year?

All I want to know is if my new Sony TV will come with a free root kit pre-installed at the factory?

It occurs to me that I had essentially the same conversation recently with a European acquaintance regarding the availability of a nice pate or decent wine at grocery stores here in the states.

The problem is with your understanding, not people's dislike of scalping. It's more like if you buy 10 Xboxes from the only Wal-Mart in town and they only have 12 in stock. Oh, and you got to buy them as they came off the delivery truck, because you're good friends with the manager.

...and that's a GOOD thing. Let me give you an analogy to programming: should your business requirements specify a particular algorithm or data structure? Whether or not someone has to show an ID is an implementation issue, not part of stated requirements. Which ID? Driver's License? Passport? Social Security Card? National ID?

Good laws state WHAT should happen, not HOW it happens.

From TFA: "Until recently, publishers believed books were relatively safe from piracy because it was so labor-intensive to scan each page to convert a book to a digital file. What's more, reading books on the computer was relatively unappealing compared with a printed version."

I spent a few minutes looking for a legitimate, for-sale e-book version of The Left Hand of Darkness; there isn't one.

So the publishing companies are simply repeating the mistake of the record labels: being slow to release legitimate downloadable versions of their product while bemoaning the demand for a product they refuse to produce.

Cry me a river...

Every time I see articles like this, I wonder why people like this have cell phones in the first place if they hate using them so much. That, and they need to realize that the world doesn't revolve around them, and that people who need to contact them shouldn't have to bow to their whims to communicate with them (I'd love to hear the conversation with their boss about why they didn't respond to a critical voicemail). Look...if someone needs to relay some information quickly, a phone call is much quicker than e-mail or texting (yes, really - not everyone has a phone with a keyboard). Just answer your damn phone!

So that's it then, huh? Just data processing? So why haven't chimpanzees come up with formalized logic? Do dogs use abstract reasoning?

I'm of the opinion that mere processing power will not resolve the issues facing so-called "strong" AI.

Give me a computer program that can learn an unknown language including abstract concepts by interacting with a human and you might be getting close. Good luck with that.

Well, apparently the relational database has been doomed for the last 20 years or so.

You'd think that the people running the thousands of systems with databases managing data on everything from bank accounts to medical records to what you bought from Wal-Mart last tuedsay would have heard the news by now and moved on to the Next Big Thing.

I won't argue with you that the "war on drugs" has some unfortunate effects, but I find that proponents of legalizing drugs haven't necessarily thought things through.

What you're wanting is for us to legitimize powerful, ruthless businessmen who have far-reaching influence in politics and an existing, entrenched supply and distribution network; a huge head-start over anyone else who wanted to enter the market.

Proponents of legalizing drugs say that we should tax them...what makes you think that people who didn't balk at bribery and murder would pay their taxes?

Assuming that they do start paying their taxes...legalizing drugs wouldn't get rid of the drug lords, it would simply allow them to openly buy the government of their choice to solidify their power, the same way big oil, the defense industry, etc. already do. How would any of this be an improvement?