The pipe was more than big enough, but ISPs chose to not allow all the packets through. Once Netfilx paid the ransom, though, the pipe instantly opened up to the full available bandwidth.

Netfilx did pay to upgrade their pipe to their ISP, just like I paid to upgrade my pipe to my ISP. Just like I shouldn't have to pay to upgrade the pipe from Amazon to Amazon's ISP because it is too congested, Netfilx shouldn't have to pay to upgrade the pipe from me to my ISP, nor should they have to pay to upgrade pipes inside transit ISPs. Regardless of the fact that the onus was on other ISPs to either upgrade their infrastructure, Netflix offered to install for free devices inside customer ISPs that would reduce the need to send as much data over the pipes, except for the last mile (which can't be avoided). Still, the ISPs refused and instead requested cash to stop throttling Netflix.

And, again, note that as soon as that cash was paid, the pipes magically opened up, which means that the bandwidth was available all along, but ISPs just chose to throttle Netfilx. If you've got fiber installed, and switch port connections available, lighting up the fiber costs pennies per terabit transferred, but the ISPs saw this as a way to again make money for something they had already been paid money (multiple times) to do.

You are looking more and more like a shill with every post.

No, I meant exactly what I said. If you don't understand why a single ISP getting paid twice for the same packet is bad for all users of the Internet (end users, businesses, etc.), then you should educate yourself before you continue in the discussion.

You have done nothing to show that you understand the issue...you merely state that the government has to prove that net neutrality is better than the current situation. You also complain about the government "want[ing] to control the hundreds of billions of dollars of network infrastructure that private companies have invested it", when those hundreds of billions of dollars were provided by the government as tax relief with the expectation that the companies would fulfill their end of the agreement (to provide high-speed last-mile universally). Since the companies have not fulfilled their end, and charging twice for the same packet means they are now charging five times for some services (once to the federal government for the tax break to build the infrastructure, once to local governments for tax breaks to build the infrastructure, once to the end user to install infrastructure to their house, once to the end user for monthly fees, and once to the service to avoid artificial congestion caused by using all the other charges to line the pockets of executives), this shows you are woefully uneducated on the subject.

Or, you could be one of those executives with lined pockets. In which case, yes, I don't agree with the way you do business, and your opinion should no longer matter, as you've been paid enough, thank you very much.

Then, your setup is horribly broken, as Microsoft limits individual download speeds to far less than 100Mbps. You can get more total speed if you are downloading multiple files at the same time, but even 4-5 at the same time shouldn't cause a problem.

Of course the Internet isn't a series of UPS trucks.

When something is shipped via UPS, only one party pays UPS. Sure, sometimes the other party pays the first party so they can pay UPS, but UPS doesn't collect money for the same package from multiple parties. On the other hand, ISPs do collect money for the same packet from multiple parties. This is a bad thing and net neutrality should prevent it.

If you can't understand why it's important that ISPs not be able to be paid more than once for the same packet, then you really shouldn't be in a discussion about whether the government should or shouldn't impose regulations on ISPs.

The data just says that of all Mercury Topaz's included in the report (and at least 50 must have been used to generate a quote for the model to appear at all), 28.8% have been ticketed at least once. The list is then sorted by the percentage. You can see the obvious flaws.

First, if a single Corvette received 100 tickets last year, it still just counts as "ticketed once". Second, if 10,000 Tempo's were given quotes, while only 50 Topaz's were, every Topaz influences the results 200 times as much as a Tempo. Third, miles driven isn't taken into account.

A much better way to report this data is by total tickets for a model per mile driven. This eliminates both the "ticketed once" issue as well as the "sample size" issue. It also would help show trends like a Ferrari that is only driven on weekends might get far more tickets per mile driven than a sedan.

I was trying to point out that 4 years ago this month (when I bought my "2011"), many of the features from the new Corvette were already available.

I have no idea exactly which models have the same feature, but this shows the Focus had it the model year before (in a more limited feature set), so the answer would be "pretty much every Ford had it back then".

There's nothing bizarre about it...MLB wants you to watch games on the network that pays them the most money. In order from most to least:

1. You must watch a "national network" (Fox, ESPN, TBS, etc.) if it is carrying the game.
2. You must watch your local regional sports network, if it is carrying the game.
3. You must watch a local OTA channel, if it is carrying the game. Note that some regional sports networks partner with local stations for some games, and either channel is then considered to be the RSN.
4. You must watch on an out-of-town RSN or MLB.tv., assuming you have paid for one of these packages.

This order is what makes the MLB blackouts so draconian (as you point out). It means that what the end viewer most directly paid for has the least priority for being watched by them.

I suspect that all of these sports have the same rules (which I know MLB has) that you cannot watch your local team live over the Internet...you must watch them on local TV (either OTA or the regional sports network).

Note that this means that if you live in Chicago and buy the MLB.tv package because you are a fan of the Cleveland Indians, you will not be able to watch over the Internet when Cleveland visits either Chicago team, or vice-versa. In some years, that would mean that out of 162 games, as many as 25 will not be available to you.

On my system, "Microsoft SharePoint Workspace 2010" is the first option offered with just those three characters. Since I have never used that app, it's not about frequency or recent apps, it's about having the entire MS Office suite force-installed by group policy.

"word" does get Microsoft Word listed first, but I'm old-school and often still type "winword".

On later versions of Android, you can just "Disable" and the system will also uninstall updates for you. In addition, "Disabled" apps aren't updated automatically, even if automatic updates are turned on.

Except for the recording part, my car has exactly that feature. I can program keys that limit the maximum speed, radio volume, etc. It's a 2011 Ford.

Actually, it's a tough call on the legality, because in theory the guest could change clothes in any "private" room in the house.

If the only other person in the house is a baby in a crib, and I change clothes in a bedroom, then is capturing video of me "illegal", while if I merely enter the bedroom and walk around, the capture is "legal"?

CFLs seem to be much more sensitive to climate than incandescent bulbs (or even tubes, as you noted).

I have some 300W equivalent 6500K CFLs that I use for photography, and they have done fine even with being used in varying climates, but always stored in controlled conditions.

My current car was purchased in October 2010 with less than $5K down on a $40K vehicle with a 5-year 1.9% loan. That's not a "large down payment", since most of it was trade-in. I might have "excellent credit", but I don't really know, as I really only use it for infrequent car and home purchases. I have credit cards, but they all get paid off each month.

For me, the advantage of a new car is the lack of unexpected expenses. I added 4 years to the manufacturer's warranty for $750 (rolled into the $40K), so for 7 years, I have bumper-to-bumper coverage. My dealer gives me essentially free oil changes and tire rotations for life (4 per year limit, which is more than I use), and the other standard maintenance costs aren't unreasonable. I've spent far more money repairing damage caused by a squirrel that shredded the heat guard inside the hood than on maintenance. So, yeah, I have a fairly large payment for 5 years, then 2 years of pretty much nothing where I stuff the car payment into savings, then about 3-5 years of having to pay for some repairs before I buy a new car.

Overall, I think buying a new car every 10 years or so makes better sense than getting a used car every 2-3 years, especially if you want the used car to have the same sort of feature set as the new car. If you are buying beaters, then you'll save a lot of money, but you'll also have a lot more uncertainty about whether your car will start when you want it to.

I think a DDoS by anonymous on the servers that send the ping is in the works some time in the future. That would result in literally millions of cars (based on the percentages in TFA) being disabled.

I can understand a "kill switch" as a tool to encourage on-time payments, but not a dead-man's switch. With that sort of design, just about any problem with any part of the system would result in cars that won't run.