The fail in the article is the part where he tries to hold Assange personally responsible for a reactionary backlash against the press that may or may not happen. Wikileaks is responsible for the direct damage their revelations bring about, which, so far, is not much. They cannot be held responsible for the damage our nation does to itself in response to Wikileaks. If our leaders decreases the freedom of the press and we let them do it that cannot be laid at the feet of Wikileaks in general nor Julian Assange in particular.

US ISPs are doing their jobs properly, it's just that they define "doing their job properly" as maximizing profits. They don't actually need to serve the customer because there's almost no real competition.

But wait, it gets better! This decision is based on a copyright claim over the tiny fucking logo on the back of the watch! Ridiculous barely begins to describe it.

Achievements are classic skinner box behavior modification - they're just trying to make you play longer and trick your brain into thinking you're having more fun than you actually are. Once you realize that it becomes much easier to ignore the ones that are neither an interesting challenge nor have some actual desirable reward associated with them.

Being a "completionist" is just self-imposed OCD. Unless you actually have OCD, in which case you might want to consult your doctor before playing video games. ;)

Agree completely - you are correct.

I simplified and substituted Netflix for the real players. The real issue is that those players don't want to change their business to respond to changes in the technology and the overall ecosystem they operate in and it's a big fat lose-lose situation for the consumers because of that ecosystem is fubar.

I don't need to ask - i spelled it out in the original comment.

"It's cheaper to buy legislation mandating your business model than to compete."

It is double dipping, but not like you think.

I pay my ISP for bandwidth. ISPs want to charge Netflix for bandwidth too.

If i'm using more bandwidth now because of Netflix, that should be between me and my ISP, but ISPs don't want to mess with that relationship for fear of pissing off customers and spurring real competition in the marketplace. It's cheaper to buy legislation mandating your business model than to compete.

If we had real competition then net neutrality would be a non-issue because we could choose open networks over closed ones, but with the near-monopoly of the big operators in most markets, it's usually just a choice between their crappy service or another crappier, more expensive option.

No. Those are expressions of ideas. There's a difference.

Apple is more dangerous because the other villains are obvious. Apple makes people want to lock themselves into nice cozy cells. Sure the window is small, but what you can see through the bars is pretty and the chairs are comfy.

Blah blah blah overused quote about safety, security, liberty, yada yada.

Luck is what people who don't believe in the supernatural call forces that they do not fully comprehend.

The problem with that is that we would have to rely on our two-party system to revamp the election process so that it weakened the two-party system.

If there's one thing both Democrats and Republicans can agree on it's that they don't want to make it easier for people other than Ds and Rs to get elected.

The only winning move is not to play.

You are wrong across the board.

The people who just want free stuff aren't generally aware enough to know about the network neutrality issue. The proponents of network neutrality are concerned about censorship and about companies colluding to harm consumers and stifle innovation in order to defend their own slice of the market.

And also: wtf are you doing on slashdot with internet habits like those? Smells like astroturf.

Here's the thing about analogies - they are very good at taking a complex issue and making it understandable at a very surface level to an uninformed person. They are also very good at taking an issue and skewing it so that one side looks better than the other. If someone uses an analogy to describe something simple, they either think you are a drooling idiot or they are trying actually trying to influence you towards one side.