It's also about overall calories. Foods that are fattier tend to contain more calories. So for many "processed"* (stupid hippy term, but you know what I mean) foods, the fat increases their calories significantly, and the sugars and salt make people crave more without feeling full.

$$$$$

Cool, so I can blow through my 2GB in a matter of seconds!

Sorry, but that's just stupid. Yes, possession of any degree by itself certainly shouldn't be a sole decision making factor in choosing to hire somebody, and I would certainly be more suspicious of an online degree, although that would also depend on what institution the degree is from and what the degree is in. Of course, if the online degree was from some bogus institution that's not properly accredited, then I don't consider that a degree, I consider that fraud, but we're talking about a degree from ASU here, not the Babylonian Online College of Bullshittery. I've also dealt with people with brick-and-mortor degrees that were completely incompetent too. That's what the rest of the resume and in particular the interview is for, so you can figure out if they're legit or not.

Your employer could be missing out on some really intelligent people who might be a great fit for the company. There are lots of reasons to get an online degree vs. brick-and-motor, for example, if you don't want or can't afford to quit your existing job, if you have young kids, etc.

Perhaps instead of having blanket disqualifications like that, your employer should work on their interviewing skills. There might even be some online classes they could take for that.

Value? None. It breaks the Starbucks model. Starbucks is really just a fast-food place like McDonald's, the employees at their locations are not chefs and don't come up with the recipes. They are not supposed to make culinary decisions, they follow a specific set of procedures, and although those procedures may be more complex and require more skill than at other fast-food restaurants, they are still a set of procedures that somebody else came up with.

It seems nuts that he should have to change the domain or remove advertising (not that I'm a fan of advertising, but it's not my site), when the whole point about this Trademark protection is brand confusion. The C&D letter is not a court order, the real problem is that this guy doesn't have a dedicated team of lawyers to fight it if it does go further. Or, can somebody with actual Trademark law knowledge explain to me what's different about this guy's site compared to other fan sites for other companies?

How about option 3:
3) Keep the advertising, keep the mention of IKEA products, but make sure the design of the site and logo don't look just like IKEA's, and put up a statement that makes it clear.

There are plenty of fan sites for various other things that use the name of the thing they're a fan of and have advertising, but which nobody would be stupid enough to confuse with the actual thing's site. For example, I have a Nissan Xterra. I sometimes visit the forums on xterraownersclub.com. I'm pretty sure I've seen advertising there. The site actually uses the same colors as nissanusa.com (black and red, although it might be a darker red), however the design is different, and the site's logo looks nothing like Nissan's logo.

Why should this guy have to remove advertising, and why shouldn't he be able to use IKEA's name in that context? The problem comes if his logo and site look just like IKEA's. Frankly, unless he's already changed it, his logo looks nothing like IKEA's. However, if that isn't good enough for IKEA, I doubt he'd have a problem putting a little disclaimer right below the logo along the lines of "This site is not affiliated with Inter IKEA Systems B.V. IKEA is a trademark of Inter IKEA Systems B.V." I doubt IKEA had to make him remove advertising in order to protect their trademark.

Then clearly, the answer is to completely deregulate! It's worked out quite well for [the CEOs in] other industries.

For a start, how about calling "campaign contributions" what they really are, "bribes," and make it illegal.

It does if you have enough money to spend on lobbying and brib^H^H^H^H campaign contributions.

So, if only Comcast were available (as it is to many people in certain areas), would you use dial-up instead?

Queue the climate change deniers, who will try to skew this as meaning it's geothermal activity and not our CO2 contributions that are causing ice melt, not realizing that this really means curbing CO2 emissions is that much more important so we don't accelerate it.

Is it really that difficult to slow down all traffic except traffic coming from a list of IP addresses that are paying you off? Comcast didn't seem to have a problem throttling Netflix for a few months until Netflix paid up. Also, if you wanted to target video streaming, wouldn't it be easy to specify after X bits or Y packets then slow it down? That would obviously cover more than just video, but would be most noticeable to most people with video. You can start there and get more intelligent, and as you get more intelligent, the shinier the equipment you'll want to buy from Cisco. You really don't need to do MiTM to come up with a good extortion scheme.

And without net neutrality, those web pages will load even slower unless they are coming from somebody who has given your ISP extortion money (in addition to the money you're already giving them each month) to not slow them down.

All your bits are belong to Comcast.

This means Comcast & TWC will be purchasing more network equipment from Cisco. They won't upgrade infrastructure to deliver better service, but they'll happily buy equipment that prioritizes traffic (slows down traffic coming from non-paying sources) for the purpose of double dipping by charging both you and Netflix/Amazon/Google/etc.