Indeed they should.

But, there's nothing stopping an ISP from divying up the cost according to usage. In Australia, we have different data caps + plan speeds for exactly this purpose. I pay more for my internet with it's 500Gb download limit than my parents with their 70Gb download limit.

The problem with what's gone on with Netflix is that Comcast seems to be ignoring the fact that they were *already* paid (by their customers) to be able to stream Netflix at the promised speeds. Comcast is not delivering on that promise, and is now trying to deflect blame by asserting that it's not their fault Netflix traffic is flooding some crucial uplinks.

If Comcast couldn't support the advertised download rates *on average* for it's customers, they shouldn't have sold it to so many people...

Because Comcast's OWN paying customers were the ones demanding the video data.

Hehe. I had a good chuckle that "run sendmail" is in the sentences just following "Linux (and UNIX in general) is supposed to be an open system with a intelligible interface."

From the horrors that are sendmail config, it sounds like there is already some wiggle room in that philosophy :-)

That screenshot might make a wonderful conspiracy theory if it wasn't full of obvious holes.

Why isn't she logged in? Because she didn't take a local screenshot, she probably used an ONLNE screenshot service (e.g., snapito.com)

Why wasn't there a search query filled in? Because she used a direct user link... you know, twitter.com/[user]

Why was the screenshot taken so quickly after the last message? Because she'd just had a previous 3 MINUTES of detailed information including her address and her parents address sent to her with threats of bodily harm.

Why only 10 tweets? Because the account was a throw-away. Who would deliberately write that type of harassment with an account they intended to keep using?

I love a good conspiracy theory, but quite frankly I could find more support for Hitler being a time-traveller from the future than the one your touting here.

The other thing that seems to be frequently lost in these "Linus acting off" articles is how few and far between his rants actually are. We see 1, perhaps 2 of these a year? And as near as I can tell practically *all* of his discussions are on public mailing lists.

I suspect most readers getting all hot and bothered over Linus's response on the kernel mailing list probably missed the fact he went and raised a GCC bug on the issue, and seemed to have a perfectly reasonable interaction with the GCC developers: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...

I feel for your poor historians having to suffer repeated busting :'(

This is the same question I ponder as well ;-).

I always found it bizarre that a corporation, made up of people, gets extra additional powers above and beyond the rights of it's individual...

> Those corporations/individuals are just acting rationally within that system.

For a short-term definition of rationality. Taxes are not an arbitrary amount of money that goes to some higher power. It is something *you* pay, in order to ensure the upkeep of common infrastructure & services that you rely on.

These days, corporations seem to be focused exclusively on their remote shareholders, to the complete detriment of the economy and society that hosts & provides them with public utilities, law and other institutions the corporation needs. It is effectively turning these companies into a feudal system (e.g., the Google Bus), as only people working directly for the company receive any benefit from the company's success.

Eh, I suspect the GP is confusing "moral" and "legal". "Legal" just means someone has been paid enough to ignore/enforce a certain thing via law & regulation.

You are right that tax avoidance is legal... but it boggles my mind just slightly hearing exactly how little tax some of the big IT companies pay in America, considering their revenue, and the amount of service delivered within America. The whole point of a tax system is supposed to be a contribution to the upkeep of common infrastructures necessary for the society to function.

Do you honestly feel these companies are paying enough for the public resources they rely on to ensure these stay viable in future?

Well... perhaps it's actually a more realistic acknowledgement that if the OS is so badly broken it misses things like proper random number generation, chances are, it can't ever be made secure.

Let's switch to a metaphor. Imagine your OS is a house, and OpenSSL/LibreSSL is some type of security screen being fitted to your Windows (hah! do you see what I did there?). The OpenBSD people are basically saying if your house doesn't have the relatively industry-standard secure mounting points for putting their screens on, they won't install the screen. Why? Because by the time they rip apart enough of the house to embed these mounts into the walls and foundations where they belong, the expense is massive, and the result still inferior. And... if the security of the house was that low a priority to begin with, there are probably dozens of other ways this new screen can be circumvented.

You can't easily retrofit security. It tends to be as strong as the weakest link... if that link was the OS, you will never be able to achieve good security with that platform (e.g., yay random number generation is secure... oh, unpatched security flaw in memory allocation allows access to private memory of other apps... damn :-/). So why should the OpenBSD folks pretend otherwise by attempting to support it?

Keep in mind, most modern OSs have everything needed for LibreSSL. It's only either strange/old embedded systems (which really *should* be upgraded to fix the other hundred unpatched security flaws they have), or that poor grandparent stuck on Win95 somewhere who's computer is probably already part of a bot-net.

But... how would the Comcast user notice the difference? :P

Your answers are fine, but your post demonstrates one of the key problems with many gun advocates.

There are responsible gun owners like you out there... but your answers completely fail to acknowledge the ample proof that there are large numbers of *irresponsible* gun owners as well (e.g., how many Americans died as a direct result of guns in the US last year?).

Your airliner analogy confuses me. America has had numerous shootings, and very few airliner accidents, and even less that would have required someone other than a pilot to land a plane. Doesn't this prove that the odds are extremely stacked towards gun violence?

Equally, the comparison to automobiles is a bit of red herring too. Though we don't ban them, we do MANY things to ensure improve the safety of automobiles. For example, relatively strict licensing, safety features in cars, breathlizer ignitions, etc. Obviously, we do the same for guns... so stalemate.

A rational person *should* fear danger from automobiles, and do their best to avoid automobiles. After all, you don't play on the freeways do you? In the same way, a rational person *should* understand that you can only suffer a gun-related incident if there are guns in your immediate vicinity.

The fundamental perspective that I find is often missing from pro-gun arguments is any discussion about how many times a DOMESTIC CITIZEN with a gun has done something positive for society, vs. how many times a domestic citizen with a gun has done something negative for society. A car is used by millions of people for many useful things. Yes, deaths result from ownership and operation, but it is clear that society has net gain in spite of the down sides. I haven't yet seen compelling evidence to suggest that large numbers of gun owners leads to a corresponding improvement in my own quality of life.

Which makes sense if the employees are goal-oriented rather than time-oriented. However, there are legal limits to how much overtime the employer can force their workers to do. Basically, this form of protest works if the employees don't let themselves get abused by their company.

If, on the other hand, the employees simply take up all the slack, then of course this type of protest is ineffective. But... why would you work for a company that treats you this way? That is the question the employee should be asking themselves as a direct result of the peanut-butter protest. In principle, either the employee is getting paid enough to continue to perform the work, or they aren't, and will leave to find a better job.

I'm still interested in a rebuttal as to why the employees should be insulated from the choices made by management though, as I think that is the more compelling argument on why the proposed protest is effective & even desirable.

Costco isn't the only job filling the niche of low-skilled employment though. Why work at Costco vs. other employers (e.g., Walmart, other major department store chains, fast food joints etc.)?

These people are paid by the company, and as such, directly benefit from the choices the company makes. I do grant the Costco employees don't have a lot of choice, but, limited options doesn't automatically grant these people immunity from backlash as a result of the company's actions.

Out of curiosity, why is it worse that I have to restock peanut butter jars vs. whatever other task the employee has to do? Does it affect their pay directly somehow?

It is less direct than just avoiding the store all together, but can still be effective form of protest. If you know you'll get abuse for working for Costco, you'll either demand more money, or not even apply in the first place. So Costco will either need to change their reputation, or offer more money. I sympathise that this is VERY stressful on a personal level for the individual workers, but would force Costco to change in the long run.