Not to mention any small town - my parent's town *celebrated* when they got the communal mailboxes, because that was an upgrade from having to go to the post office during normal business hours to pick up General Delivery.

... and indicates a "fan" who hasn't actually read their history. The movie doesn't match the book, true. But the books don't match the radio series. Hell, there are different *versions* of the radio series, and none of them match the book (or the movie). And Adams liked it that way - as far as he was concerned (at least according to the preface on my copy), there *is* no "right version" of Hitchhikers.

Now, that's not to say that the movie is a cinematic masterpiece. But it's a good silly romp, and frankly a cinematic masterpiece wouldn't have done the subject justice.

I call shenanigans - if indie webcomic authors can (and do!) block ads they don't want on their site, surely a large organization can do the same.

And if they're deliberately courting the fake download ads on their download pages to trick their users into clicking? That's not the sort of organization I want to support anyhow.

Well, in a sense, any American has already paid for that research (via tax dollars). Probably the only time geofencing restrictions would make sense to use. (Wouldn't want us Canadians freeloading on ya!)

Look at it this way - if you substitute "taxpayer" with "Walmart" ("Whether or not Walmart-funded research should be accessible to Walmart for free.."), the argument suddenly sounds silly - why *wouldn't* the people who paid for it get to see it?

Even here in Canada, where we have sane laws, my boss could fire me for liking Trek. They'd have to pay me severance for not having proper cause, but they can do it.

Pro-tip: real employment laws list what employers can fire you for without pay, not list what they can't. Make *them* do the work proving things.

But in that case, there's a commercial incentive to post the highest minimum they can reliably give - if ISP A lowballs 1Mbps, ISP B can advertise 2Mbps ("Twice as fast as ISP A!"). The pressure would be to give the highest reasonable number (limited by what they know they can provide).

The difference is that (a) there would be more honesty in the numbers - the problem with "up to" speeds is that while I'd like to get a faster connection, I have no way of knowing *how much* faster I'd get. After all, if I'm getting 15Mbps (on my "up to 25" plan) and upgrade to "up to 100", the ISP could give me anything between 15.0001 and 100 and honestly claim that my speed is "faster".

With an "at least" claim, I'd know what I'm getting. If I get more, yay for me. But at least we're working with knowns instead of unknowns. (not to mention enforceable complaints if they're not making the minimum speed.

I've been flat-out told that unless you're in a narrow discipline, employers don't care about *what* your degree was in, just that you have one. (And by narrow I mean "actual trades requiring certification"). My wife is now an expert in her field, but that's a completely different field than what her diploma says she specialized in.

Heck, just *attending* university got me in the door a few times. And now I've got enough work experience that no-one seems to particularly care about what CS class I took 20 years ago.

But really, what harm is being done by the kernal being GLP2?

From my chair, asking me to let you assign it to *any* license of your choosing means you're going to license it proprietary. You (as Canonical) certainly aren't going to feel the urge to make it easier for your competitors, n'est pas?

No, it's not. If people are agreeing to the terms (I will pay you back X + interest in Y years), and inflation outpaces the interest rate, that's their fault for not getting a high enough interest rate.

Assuming you can buy everything at 2000 prices. You don't mind taking a paycut to what you made 14 years ago, right?

Not necessarily - debt/interest payments are generally part of the budget. So if you're balanced, you *are* paying down your debt. (Slowly, but surely). The trick is to keep it balanced.

Really, America - this isn't hard. Surplus (or deficit) = Taxes - Spending. You can either reduce your spending (say, maybe you don't need to be fighting *quite* so many wars at the same time?) or you can increase taxes (just a thought - maybe all those business taxes that were supposed to spur innovation and just ended up making rich people richer). Or you can do a bit of both, but eventually you are going to have to balance that equation. Sooner is preferable to later.