He wasn't implying that this deal would compromise net neutrality in spirit. Towards the end of the article he even states that the deal would not only keep net neutrality in tact, but it would enhance it.

"With servers so close to users, Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay. This would save space for other traffic — and money for both Verizon and Google, as their backbone bills decline (wishful thinking, but theoretically possible). Net neutrality would be not only intact, but enhanced. "

If and when an Iphone is available for Verizon customers, would that open the door to possible Droid phones being available on AT&T's network? Or, would it be possible that Verizon would ditch Droid because Apple wouldn't let them sell their phones on the Verizon network if they didn't? I think Verizon dropping the Droid would be less likely simple because Apple doesn't have much leverage over Verizon. At this point I think Apple needs Verizon more than Verizon needs Apple.

Another poster found this (PDF) which says that the oil spill will not have any significant impact on the hurricane and that hurricanes draw water vapor from a much larger area than is being covered by the oil slick.

When a tropical storm or hurricane eventually goes through the Gulf of Mexico and through this oil spill, is it possible for the storm to pick up the oil and dump it hundreds or even thousands of miles away as it makes its way across land?

I find it difficult to believe that you are such an expert on human nature that you can generalize about the motivations of people who decide to become police officers. Especially when all that generalization really amounts to is nothing more than insulting people who risk their lives to protect you so you can continue to be a dick who doesn't have a clue.

Are their bad cops? Of course there are. But the vast majority of police officers are just like everyone else. They want to go to work, do their jobs, and then go home and be with their families.

I have to disagree with your definition of art. If we accept your definition, then many of the people we consider famous for producing works of art would be excluded because one purpose for the art was to make a living.

They could try. Although I think they would have a hard time convincing people that a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist was denied because his cartoons sucked.

If the SFGate refuses to publish a cartoon that you draw up because it's no good, then that wouldn't be censorship. However, if they refuse to publish a cartoon that you draw because they deem it to be "objectionable", then that would be censorship.

There was an article in my recent Time magazine that made this same argument.

Or he could just ask like he did. Different method, same results.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

We shot ourselves in the right foot, so we should shoot ourselves in the left foot as well?

I can't speak for all MMO's, but Blizzard won't remove your WoW account due to inactivity. I stopped playing for over a year and was able to pick up right where I left off.