Over the last eight years and my previous three ISPs, my router has never once received anything other than a 192.168.x.x or a 10.x.x.x IP address from my local ISP. Not once have I received a live & legit IPv4 address. I have to pay a lot more for those. What's the difference between this and CGNAT?

I can explain it with some data regarding my car, a 2011 Kia Sportage. Some would call it a crossover, other would call it a supersized hatchback.

2.4L 176hp four-banger w/ 6-speed transmission. EPA rated it at 21/28. It has an onboard mpg-meter that I've found to be pretty accurate. When cruising on the highway in optimal conditions (no wind, flat terrain, warm weather, inflated tires, etc.), I get:

34 mpg driving 45 mph
32 mpg driving 50 mph
31 mpg driving 55 mph
28 mpg driving 60 mph
27 mpg driving 65 mph
25 mpg driving 70 mph

In addition, the six speed transmission has *barely* enough power to maintain cruising speeds in its highest gear. Any time you accelerate, experience a headwind, go up any hill, drive with a cold car, or have a lot of weight in your vehicle, it doesn't use the highest gear and instead pushes back one or two gears for additional power, dropping your fuel efficiency further.

So, there are considerable variables there that will cause wide variation with highway driving. Grandma and grandpa will be very pleased that they get 32 mpg driving on the highway, while joe leadfoot will probably return the vehicle complaining it only gets 25 mpg (or less) on the highway.

In addition, I only get 12.5 mpg driving in the city. I live in a "city" of 5,000 people. My trek two-and-from work is 2 miles each way. I have six four-way stop signs between here and work. The fastest street I can drive on has a limit of 30 mph. My car is parked outside overnight, and I don't let my car warm up for more than one minute before driving it. Any other city driving is very similar. And that's all why I don't get the EPA-rated 21 mpg in the city.

Even the president has declared them guilty. Guess I should just throw in the towel.

“Whatever hateful agenda drove these men to such heinous acts will not, cannot, prevail. Whatever they thought they could achieve, they’ve already failed.” -- President Obama (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/19/17823265-we-got-him-boston-bombing-suspect-captured-alive?lite)

For all we know, they were commiting a crime of an unrelated nature.

My point has not changed from my original post; I am tired of this bloody spectacle. The news has been fixated on this even for the past four days, and it has done nothing but reinforce fear and paranoia within our society. While the odds are high that these men are guilty, we should not let our personal opinions interfere with our judgement or our civility. I thought a little satire in my parent post would make this point, but I guess it didn't.

Is it safe to go out now?

I mean, before this case is even brought before a courtroom, police have already done the finger pointing, and the court of public opinion has already found him guilty. And how could either of them be wrong?

How many water pipes reach your house? How many sewer pipes?

We got ourselves a city slicker here. Fella, don't know how long it's been since you've seen pasture, but I'm not quite sure you got yourself an understandin' of how things work out in the country. Lemme give ya' a little lesson.

Out in the country, we don't run water & sewer pipes. We drill wells for water, and we use septic tanks to keep our shit.

Now, unless you've found a way to shove a grounding rod in the dirt, jack it to your computer, and pick up internet access free of charge, your analogy's fallin' flatter than a flapjack.

Country bunk aside, my point is simply this: We cannot easily afford to make broadband a "utility" for rural residents. It's not like water and sewer that we can pump out of the ground and then back into the ground. If we're going to guarantee access to all, we collectively have to pay for rural residents, who are much, much, much more expensive to run lines to.

I concur with the position that our laws should not be authored by corporations and should not be passed using the influence of campaign financing.

That being said, I support the bill. As a teacher, if I were to ask my students to take a survey in class, then aggregate the data and sell the results to a corporation eager to know how to market to that age group, I would be fired. Then why should a school condone corporations like Google or Facebook to permit the same activity? As a parent, I would be very upset to know that schools are allowing corporations to harvest marketing data while at school. And as a taxpayer, I want as little corporate involvement in our public school as possible.

I just wish Microsoft wasn't involved. Especially given all the illegal acts Microsoft has committed over the last two decades, it's almost the pot calling the kettle black.

To hell with those licensing schemes mentioned in other posts. And, no, we will not allow any foreign taxes paid to be deducted from taxes due in the US. If you have an office in Ireland, or wherever, you pay your taxes there - and you ALSO pay your taxes here.

I don't think it would be fair to tax foreign operations, if those foreign operations generate foreign income.

Therein lies the problem. Currently, a company that generates, say, 90% of its income in America is sending, say, 90% of its profits overseas.

Here's what would be fair and equitable: For any company with an international presence, if 90% of your income is generated in America, then 90% of your net profits are taxed, regardless of where you house those profits throughout the world.

Of course, then we'll probably see companies shift their financial operations overseas, allowing them to claim that income is no longer made "in America", which wouldn't at all be a difficult shift in today's internet-based global economy. In which case we change the law once more to say that you either still pay a percent of profits or instead pay a flat tax on international income, whichever is larger. Businesses would scream holy hell, but it doesn't matter, because they're the ones that brought this on themselves. If you profit from America, you are obligated to pay America taxes so that America can continue to afford to be America.

But we get the point.

It's very well established that banks committed fraud. It's very well established that the US Government protected these very institutions when they were knowledgeable of the fraud being committed.

It's also very well established that no one's going to criminal court. Wall Street and Washington D.C. have been coupled together in such an orgy of conspiracy that neither will willingly do anything to jeopardize their sybiotic relationship.

In my school last week, we had a 6th grade student openly defiant against the teacher, the teacher assistant, and the principal. Refused to listen to anyone or do anything they said. As he was sitting in the office waiting for a parent to come pick him up, another staff member sat down and started visiting with him. The student took an interest in someone who was interested in him, and for the next thirty minutes read jokes to her out of a nearby jokebook. He was very calm and relaxed after that.

While we want to treat North Korea's actions and behaviors as signs of aggression, their behaviors in many ways are quite childish. Perhaps we need to rethink our ways of communicating with them and respond to their emotional needs to help them...how would you say..."grow up"?

I'm not putting my documents into the hands of Google until Google can guarantee me that it will stay private. Of course, the only way they can afford to do that is by charging me for their service, since the cost of their service being free is the ability to harvest data for advertising purposes. Remember when using Google (and Facebook, or any other free site for that matter): you are not the customer, you (and your data) are the product.

Now, if Microsoft would just get smacked upside the head, see what Google is beating them at, and design a product that their customers want, they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. If anyone here works at Microsoft, please listen: I want a product that is Office 365 / Google Docs, but installed on a private server/s onsite in a way that integrates with Active Directory. I want to sign in securely through a web window, edit my onsite documents through the web portal while at home or away on business, allow others to have access to the documents to read and/or edit and edit collaboratively online, and have those documents there for me to open back up and edit the traditional way (logging into a computer joined to the domain and opening the file in Microsoft Office) when I'm back at work. And since the data is hosted onsite, no one's looking at or harvesting my data for marketing purposes, and I can tell my boss that the security of data is in our hands, our responsibility, and our responsibility alone. I could be a hospital, a business, a school, a government agency, I could work for any entity that needs to guarantee to his superiors that no one else but us will have access to this data. Google can never promise that.

Microsoft, if you do this, you'll maintain control of the business market for at least another decade. Don't let Google erode privacy away.

Your comment has deeper insight than what appears at first glance.

We are upset with Westboro for the very same reasons we are upset with gunmen who commit massacres.

These people are irresponsible with the liberties we all respect and desire to preserve, whether the 1st amendment or the 2nd.

The question truly is this: Is restricting the liberties of those who are abuse them worth the price of infringing upon our own?

I believe there is no good answer.

The only solution I can see is better education for our children about understanding, appreciating, and upholding our responsibilities inherent to our liberties.

He's saying that Hotmail, Yahoo, and GMail are running a cartel of free online webmail services.

He's trying to get opt-in email to accounts on these systems, and it's not going through. He has evidence indicating these services operate a common hidden blacklist service keeping those emails from getting to the accounts. He cannot reach people within these organizations to open up emails coming from his domains, as he does not have an inside contact to "assist" him with this problem. This leads him to speculate that Hotmail, Yahoo, and GMail are operating like a cartel, where only "approved" email list hosting service companies with inside contacts are able to do business with these services.

Better?

They would always comment about how, when couples back-in-the-day got married, the first thing on their list of wants was children. Now, the list of wants usually starts with a house, two cars, living in a nice neighborhood, better insurance, a bigger TV, a good living room set... One's take on the matter: "America's so selfish nowadays it doesn't deserve children."

Before we blame the IT staff, let me give this some perspective. (I have nine years experience as a teacher & tech director in a public K-12 US school.)

First, I'm reasonably confident in saying that, if proper Group Policy was implemented and user restrictions put in place, this never would have happened. Second, this is a HUGE school district with over 50 schools. They can certainly afford a public liaison (who was speaking on behalf of the district in the local broadcast), and I'm sure they have a large IT staff...I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 20-30 employees. Though public school districts would pay less than Microsoft right next door, given the sheer numbers there must be at least a few people on that staff that know how to accomplish this and as well of its value in preventing this sort of mess from happening.

With that in mind, here's what I've concluded: There is likely someone with leadership authority who told IT staff to let students manage their own laptops and have admin privileges. Given the size of the district, the directive either came from the district technology committee, or directly from the superintendent, school board, or both. All it would take is a number of parents to ignorantly complain to a "friend on the board" that "Johnny's laptop is broken - he can't install the programs he needs to do his homework" for the school board to direct the superintendent to "fix the issue." Likely this was a top-down order; I simply cannot imagine a tech staff that large to be that incompetent on their own.

What bothers me about this is how they're going about trying to fix the problem. If I had a worst-case mass-deployment of a virus at my school, I would just recall all the equipment, reimage everything, and redeploy a week later. I would issue a directive to all the staff that the equipment is down for one week to be cleaned, and make due without it. It's either one week of downtime or months of unreliability. If teachers would know that they have the option of either the problem being fixed in a week or the problem being "managed" over months, they would all take the week's downtime in a heartbeat.

One other question I have for those here: have you ever encountered a Windows virus that, as they claim, just "spreads on the network" without user initiation of the virus by clicking on an executable, script, or loading an infected webpage? I think the much more likely scenario is that this virus is being spread through usb flash disks, but I'm not sure whether that explanation was too technical for staff to understand.