Like the other article yesterday about net neutrality, this just goes to show people that in the end big company's like Verizon can just buy anything they want and make the regulators and politicians dance to their tune and it's the general public that gets the short end at every turn and the regulators who are supposed to protect the interests of the people are not doing their jobs.

It seems to me that you haven't been the skinny weaker non-fit kid being bullied and harassed by a bigger strapping star football team member. Sometimes all it's about is a bigger stronger kid harassing and beating on a smaller kid for no other reason than that he can and your remark about "it takes two to tango" is asinine.

Having been on the receiving end of a lot of that myself, I can tell you that back then teachers always considered both kids at fault. To this day I'll never understand why teachers were so blind to the fact that the bigger stronger "athletic" kids constantly harassed the weaker kids.

There are so many things wrong with this situation it's unreal. Not living in Pennsylvania I don't know what the laws there are i.e. what kind of anti-bullying laws they have and what kind of conversation recording laws they have but the school was wrong, the police were wrong, the judge was wrong and the parents of the kid were stupid for not saying "this conversation stops NOW until our lawyer gets here" when they saw where it was going. And the bully gets off Scott free and the kid who was probably already a nervous wreak now had psychological problems.

Since the Supreme Court refused to rule on the latest challenge http://jurist.org/paperchase/2... we don't know if it is or isn't. In my opinion the original judge who said "that the program is likely unconstitutional" was correct, so the program continues to operate and probably faces years more worth of legal challenges.

Exactly and in the end the consumer is going to end up paying more as the various services have to raise their rates to offset the additional costs.

I'm really not sure what you mean by that? But I usually just sleep an extra hour and no problem. Is losing an hour such a big deal for most people?

Your phone is probably too old, but most smartphones sync their time to some time server. I'm not really sure if it's NTP or some other protocol or if Verizon has it's own time servers that in turn sync to one of the national atomic clocks or what but I imagine it's something like that.

  All I know about the radio time signal is that when I went to buy a new alarm clock a couple years ago there were a slew of reasonably priced ones that said "radio controlled" and according to the booklet when I got it there's a time signal (at least here in the US) being broadcast in most areas that the clocks can sync to so they're always on time. So when the time change comes the clocks automatically adjust to the correct time. Just go on Amazon and search for "radio controlled clock" and I'm sure you'll find a good selection.

I'm just speaking for myself, but I've never had any problems adjusting even to losing an hour. I just set the alarm for 7.5 hours (my usual amount of sleep time) from whenever I end up going to sleep. No big deal for me, I don't know about small children by why not make them go to sleep an hour early on Saturday night or let them sleep an hour later on Sunday.

The change of time used to be a twice a year annoyance but since computers started to adjust themselves; cell phones sync time to whatever time server the carrier used and the wall and alarm clocks I have wirelessly sync to the radio time signal the only clocks I have to adjust manually are the microwave and the car. So not so annoying as it used to be.

Ok, I'll bite; how is anyone supposed to "quit paying them at some point"? In my area you have two choices, either Comcast or Verizon. I know plenty of people who use one or the other (I use Comcast myself) and no one and I mean no one likes either one. People complain endlessly about the service, the support, the cost of equipment or what seems like annual price hikes of $1 here and a dollar there. And don't get me started on Verizon, they make it so that to use the channel lineup on your cable boxes you have no choice but to use their junky Actiontec router that is not only difficult for anyone but the most advanced user to program but also many of the advanced features you find on Linksys, Netgear or Asus routers don't work properly. But for the sake of this argument, what if in the end both Verizon and Comcast throttle Netflix, what are people going to do and who do you suggest they switch to? It's a very closed market with only those two choices (in this area anyway) for internet and TV service and it's just not realistic to say "just quit paying" because you say to Verizon "You're throttling my Netflix and the service is unusable so I'm not paying you this month" and Verizon will happily say "Ok, we're turning off your service due to non-payment".

I'm standing by what I said, the customer is paying for their internet service and it's wrong for any ISP to throttle a particular site that the customer wants to use.

I know this topic has been beaten to death here, but I see it the same way you do. Verizon customers pay a toll (their monthly charge for internet access) to use Verizon's connection to the internet as a whole. No Verizon customer should have their data throttled no matter what site they are accessing as long as they are in compliance with Verizon's TOS.

Anonymous coward complex, you have it.

Just another quality product "Made In China"

Ok, I understand your point. I'm just saying that fewer drives are easier to manage. You are almost certainly right that at least initially the price per gigabyte of the 5TB drives will be somewhat higher than the average 2TB, 3TB or 4TB drives and there are possible unknown reliability issues which is why I'd wait 6 months to a year for the price to come down and the reliability to be determined. At the moment based on the prices of Western Digital Green drives on Amazon (here in the U.S. and in dollars), 2TB drives work out to .0445 cents per gigabyte, 3TB drives .03822 cents and 4TB drives .0419975 cents. So yes, 3TB drives are the cheapest per gigabyte but a price differential of .0036675 cents per gigabyte is almost inconsequential and fewer 4TB drives rather than more 3TB drives is just easier to manage. Also in terms of reliability and warranty I would much prefer to use Western Digital Black drives which in my experience are more reliable than the green drives and in the 4 cases of failure I've run into 3 of the 4 were replaced under this drives 5 year warranty versus the two year warranty of the green series drives which I've had at least 5 out of warranty failures. But black drives are significantly more expensive than the green drives, right now prices seem to be 2TB .071475 cents per gigabyte, 3TB .068656 and 4TB .06759 (so in black drives the 4TB works out to the lowest per gigabyte cost) which makes the 4TB black drive about 61% more than the 4TB green drive which is just too expensive for drives used to archive data no matter that you get 3 additional years of warranty.

I didn't mean to imply that you were disagreeing with me so sorry if it seemed like it :-) I really just wanted to explain my situation and the use of these high capacity drives in my environment. Most of my desktop computers have two internal SATA drives (usually 2 X 2TB Black) and usually I have four to six unused internal SATA connectors in anyone of my workstations.