Net Neutrality's 'points' are as numerous as the stars in the sky, yet any elevator speech on it will only name three of them. This setup guarantees that you can never fully deliver, and that people will scrutinize your choice of stars (the brightest? The closest? The most suitable for Earth life?) The only guarantee of one's veracity is either 1. When they're dying or 2. When they actively take positions that seem contrary to their interests.

But what if their professed interests are actually decoys too, and that by actively taking positions against the decoys they actually serve their true interests? (Second-order strategy). I get the feeling that Rush Limbaugh is not as stupid as he looks, but that his listeners ARE as stupid as they look.

Pardon me officer, but I would like to skip the scanner and go straight to the pat-down. For the lucky agent, I'll pick...her!

This thing shoots from kilometers away. Invest in Radar Transparency.

And it's not just a matter of getting lower profits from the same demand. Algorithmically calculating your bill like that would actually REDUCE the demand function! There's a reason why people don't like getting "nickeled and dimed" : having to be cognizant of the marginal cost of an extra YouTube video is exhausting. People would be conservative with their browsing, and thus Verizon would be out of even more money.

Throw in grandma and freedom with the children. Why you could put anything under these umbrellas!

A society that has forgotten to forgive will hold a grudge against itself forever.

I use Google Chrome and Firefox concurrently, using the other when my primary doesn't work. Firefox has random issues with plugins as well. Sometimes it'll freeze for a site like Mangafox, as if trying to think through the javascript in the background. Chrome has serious Flash issues though. Sometimes either they won't show up, or there'll be some infinite loop that'll force you to kill it. If Firefox wasn't a resource hog, I'd go back in a heartbeat.

Battle of distinctions! Anti-Female vs. Anti-Business > Civil vs. Criminal Basically it's because sexual harassment tends to evoke images of harassing women, which kicks off a chain reaction of rage.

Why would we pay them to do something which is for their own benefit? If they don't want it, then let them make that choice and suffer down the road. *Ninja whisper* ...Wait. What do you mean I'm going to bail them out?!

Right now, I talk to my friends while playing BlazBlue, and randomly buy DLCs for Valkyria and Assassin's Creed II. Why ruin a good relationship, Sony?

We're talking about China, right?

They're not going to like changing their tune.

You speak of designed as if our template was static and present from the start. Have I got a set of genes for your waist!

It's tricky to give just enough insurance that risk is properly diffused, but not so much that you create a moral hazard. The inflection point, it seems, is where effort stops and circumstances overtake. Until we can get into each other's heads and put an exact number on one's effort, we are dealing with truly Knightian uncertainty. If we had a marketing campaign disparaging people whose diet consists of soda and burgers, we could bring the American fat distribution more in line with the Japanese or Scandinavian. Imagine how many children we could send to school with the health savings!

The rationale isn't to limit consumer choice, but to reduce the healthcare costs associated with certain consumer choices. For example, a person's choice of hamburger and soda diet has externalities, namely resulting from the quadruple bypasses some of them require. These costs are not internalized; rather, most likely their health insurance (that is, rest of us) will foot the bill. --Apparently some of us do not want to foot quite so much of that bill. Hence, this. I do not think the government should step into food matters, though. I'd much rather see a more decentralized approach, such as making fun of people.