SFF systems used to be rather limited, but they have evolved to the point that there is really no need to build a massive, cumbersome system; unless you are doing really hardcore things such as SLI and overclocking. Take a look at the Silverstone Sugo enclosures or something similar. The SG08B-LITE will still allow you to use any beefy GPU you want as long as it has the right style of cooler.

I remember learning cursive all throughout middle school. It never served any functional purpose afterward. Almost nobody used it and the few people who still insisted on it were the ones whose handwriting nobody wanted to have to read because it was so difficult to make out. In college, many professors will not accept a paper written in cursive for that same reason. I still think handwriting is important, but to hell with cursive. Why waste time teaching it when the vast majority will never use it?

Maybe I'm not understanding the full picture, but data caps seems like a farce to me; at least in the U.S. They put the data caps in place, claiming their networks cannot handle the load, then make some of the most data-hogging apps such as streaming music exempt from them? What am I missing here?

I honestly think everyone should be putting more time and energy toward this rather than having the FCC enforce net neutrality. It will be much trickier for conservatives to preach their free market line against something that is so obiously designed to open up competition. What gets me every time is when people say "Deregulate broadband and it will increase competition!". I have never once seen someone spout this line and offer a single detail about how this is supposed to work. Do they seriously expect every house and building to have multiple fiber connections built out to them? Google Fiber has also been a double-edged sword in that it has made these same people say "Google did it so that means others will!". I don't even need to point out everything that is wrong with that idea.

Lately I have become less concerned with enforcing net neutrality on the incumbent monopolies and more concerned with addressing the root problem by ending said monopolies. As long as everyone is held captive by these profiteering gluttons, there are always going to be problems and battles over how they can and cannot user "their" pipes. Municipal fiber networks need to be built and they need to be open-access. The good news is that the demand for such networks is increasing by the day; and widespread, nonpartisan support for them is easier to come by than support for net neutrality rules enforced by the FCC. We should strike while the iron is hot and get the ball rolling while the incumbents are still mostly clinging to their crappy copper and wireless networks. Better to do that than wait for them to eventually turn their copper monopolies into fiber monopolies and be facing the same problems ten years from now. To this end, the first step that needs to happen is to clean up the unholy mess that is UTOPIA in Utah. It is fouling up the waters for every municipal fiber project by being the resident whipping boy that every opponent points to when they want to argue that muni-fiber networks are a bad idea.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Even with the misleading propaganda efforts, the public in general overwhelmingly supports Net Neutrality. If this issue were put to an actual vote, I have zero doubt that it would win by a landslide. I have yet to meet a single tech-savvy person that supports paid prioritization, even among conservatives. Sadly, that doesn't seem to matter. If it did, we would be some kind of democracy or something. Heaven forbid.

Being open-source is what allowed these flaws to become publicly exposed. This article assumes that this is a 100% bad thing. The better question is how many closed-source security holes exist and are being actively exploited that we don't know about?

This is why I think that the Netflix debacle amounts to a bait-and-switch on the part of the ISPs. If they advertise a connection to the 'Internet' at a given speed, then fail to deliver on that speed when the party on the other end has provided the necessary capacity, they are committing straight-up false advertising.

Just how much piracy goes on inside the FBI?

Hence why I think that ultimately, the battle over municipal broadband projects goes hand-in-hand with the debate about net neturality. When all is said and done, the fact of the matter is that there is a colossal and growing demand for a service that the incumbent broadband providers are not only failing spectaculary to give us, but are continuously warping and degrading to sate their own greed. Even if they successfully kill net neutrality and municipal broadband for now, they will only prolong the inevitable. Society has tasted what a free and open Internet can give us, and will only grow more and more outraged if it is withheld. The technology-backwards old farts in congress will eventually die off, and even the misguided people who ate the boloney they were fed by the ISPs and their shills will see reality as our broadband infrastructure becomes more and more of a joke compared to every other developed country.

If I hear the "no reduction in competition" argument one more time, I am going to have an aneurysm. I don't even need to say what is wrong with that argument. This is about the immense power Comcast will gain by controlling a full third of Internet subscribers. Lawmakers in congress whine and moan about giving the FCC too much power with Title II, and yet some of them support letting such a behemoth, unchained monster loose on everyone? This is beyond ridiculous.

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.

Because nothing spurs congress to action faster than a chest-thumping contest with the Russians.