What you are describing is not "net neutrality", but usage based billing. There is no problem with that on /..

What /.ers are talking about when they refer to net neutrality is the neutral treatment of data based on the content of the data, NOT the manner in which the content is transmitted. That is a very important technical distinction to make that is commonly misapplied when the term "net neutrality" is used without understanding the underlying issue.

Your electricity bill is "electric neutral" already. If BC Hydro were to overturn "electric neutral" they would bill you differently not only the quantity of electricity you used, but for the purpose to which you put the electricity. They could do things like bill you more for powering a non-BC Hydro branded/partner TV or fridge, but they would sell it to you as a "discount" for using their services. If you complained, they would say oh just switch to a competing provider!

Except the only other "competition" colludes with them in price.

http://gear.ign.com/articles/765/765614p1.html

These were going for around $10 on ebay a while ago.

While technically this correct, in practice you cannot always de-authorize your consoles.

*You must MANUALLY deauthorize your PSN account on EACH PS3 which you have ever logged in.*

That means:
If your PS3 crashed and you were unable to get to the deauthorize menu item, you lose that "slot" forever.
If you reformat YOUR OWN PS3 without deauthorizing your PSN account, you lose that "slot" forever.
If you have shared your PSN account with someone and they don't deauthorize the account, you lose that "slot" forever.

Citation: I've read this on the official Sony FAQ some time in the past but I can't find it right now, so here is another link that explains how things work: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=158147

I had one of these growing up too and it was one of my favourite toys. There are lots of opportunities to experiment by modifying the suggested experiments with changing resistance values and inputs and outputs.

The option to install Linux is removed in the new 3.0 firmware.

The new 3.0 firmware is required to play online.

Old owners have the "option" of retaining the ability to install Linux, or giving up the ability to play any games online.

That's all fine and dandy if the attacker/zombie is under the jurisdiction of the Australia government, but what if it is not? Is the insurance company really going to step into your shoes and chase someone halfway across the world to get a judgment and enforce it? What if you don't have a cause of action against the attacker/zombie in the foreign jurisdiction? Ironically, the effect of your proposed law would be to protect foreign victims of Australian attackers. I guess what you are proposing is some sort of multi-national treaty whereby all signatories of the treaty would enact similar legislation to force internet users to take liability for the actions of their computers. Good luck!

A fake piece of moon rock isn't exactly the most thoughtful gift.

The ambassador should have given something like a collection of classic American music on cassette tape.

The entire "study" has one huge glaring problem: A PIRATED GAME DOES NOT MEAN A LOST SALE.

He asks what he can do to "convert more people to become buyers". You can't convert people that wouldn't have bought your game in the first place. The only way to stop people copying your game is to provide more value to a so-called pirate such that the "pirate" gets more utility from the game by paying for it than by downloading it. If your game sucks and provides only marginal utility, even if he couldn't play the game for free the game he wouldn't have paid for it.