I just picked up one of these and I must say I've been incredibly happy with it. The construction is top notch (Germans know a thing or two about how to build stuff), the key action is amazing, and it looks incredible. Pricey? Yes. But so is a finely-crafted automobile. Both will probably outlast you.

Others have mentioned Topre keyboards; you might also like to look at Mattias quiet keyboards. But really if you are happy with the Logitech G15 then there is no need to change away from rubber domes - keyfeel is entirely a matter of personal preference.

It doesn't. The Netflix issues were never about Net Neutrality. I have tried to explain that countless times. The problem is that people are so blinded by their hate of cable companies and their ignorance of how peering works that it doesn't sink in. Peering is a good thing. The Netflix deal actually helps the little guy that can't afford peering to have more bandwidth over the backbones and cable company transit connections. Netflix played people. I suspect they used threats of Net Neutrality in negotiations. It never had to benefit them. It never had to really be all that bad, just the threat was good enough. Now the FCC had a foot in the door, we should all be scared. It seems to me that governments have a worse track record of stifling free speech than companies do.

The headline is pretty misleading, and the illogical nature of it is revealed in the opening sentences of the "article." How in the world can you say solar "beats coal and wind" when it is responsible for roughly 1% of overall generation? Sure, it *added* more capacity by percentage this year than other power generation types, but so what? If I generated zero watts last year via hamster wheel generation and added one watt this year, my percentage increase is...well...infinity! Haha! I beat everything on the planet! But my actual generation is laughable.

I'm not trying to talk down solar, or wind, or anything. I'm just sick of the sensational headlines full of hyperbole picking relatively useless metrics to claim something like this is really amazing when, in fact, it's quite pedestrian.

Panasonic is about the only major PC maker which makes Apple kit look cheap. You pay a big premium for that extra ruggedness.

Now there's more games than gamers!

Seriously, yes, I know -- or at least suspect -- there are more than a thousand Linux gamers on Steam out there, but really...when you've got barely 1% of the gaming market, it's a little silly to say 2015 could be the "Year of Linux Gaming." At some point you have to disconnect yourself from wishful thinking and hyperbole and just say "yeah, it's getting better, but it still has a very long way to go."

You can't? Try instead to imagine what would happen to a Clinton staffer who told her she can't do something, especially when Hillary has very concrete and politically-motivated reasons for violating policy (i.e. hiding potential corruption, illegal dealings, etc. from FOIA requests and Congressional inquiry). Hillary doesn't exactly have a reputation for dealing kindly with people like that, you know.

I did check the law. There's nothing preventing her from using a private email or private server...so long as everything is recorded, archived, and available for government inspection if needed. The problem here is there is no way to guarantee this. Clinton can say she's turned over everything "relevant" to government business, but she can't prove she didn't withhold unflattering or potentially illegal emails. Further, the government cannot prove what is or isn't relevant because it hasn't had control of the server/email since inception. This kind of stuff is precisely why the law was amended (admittedly after Clinton's tenure as SecState) to prevent Federal employees from using personal stuff for official business.

But to say she didn't break the law is being disingenuous. If she's unable or unwilling to turn over everything, she's not complying with the law.

She doesn't regret using personal email. She regrets getting CAUGHT using personal email.

The real competition (in features, that is, not price) for an Apple tablet would be the Panasonic Toughpad 4k, a monster 20-inch tablet with 3840x2560 resolution (that is, 4:3 aspect ratio). It's a beautiful piece of kit but hugely expensive. Apple could put the same panel in a 20 inch "iPad Pro" or "MacPad" and if priced more keenly it could sell well among those doing graphics work who want something more portable than a desktop.

Wrong? Rearlly? Netflix has peering with the ISP's right now! It is working! Netflix even said they liked the outcome in their stockholder's meeting. The host inside the network still requires a connection that is over 1Gb/s. Sometimes it makes more sense to peer. Netflix got in trouble because they tried to use the government to negotiate peering. Netflix is not pure and clean. Yeah, the outcome worked out for them, but at the risk of the FCC stepping in and changing everything. Now Netflix isn't too sure it likes Title II regulation. I know everyone hates the cable companies, but they were not treating Netflix any different from any other peer, once Netflix decided to peer directly instead of using a 3rd party.

It is *completely* logical. The reason VPN works is because your are reaching your VPN endpoint via the transit connection. The VPN endpoint node was on a network that either had no peering with Netflix or the peering point was not overloaded.

Peering exchanges traffic between two networks. Your VPN host would have to be inside the Netflix network to experience the same issues as raw streaming.,

Comcast was NOT throttling. Cogent didn't not purchase enough bandwidth from Comcast via the peering port to handle all the traffic. Not only that, but Cogent didn't want to purchase more bandwidth because Cogent enjoys mainly settlement-free peering. Cogent *admitted* that *they* were throttling. They probably wished they had never taken on Netflix as a customer.

People, please learn how peering and the peering fee structure works before asking the FCC to stomp around and change the Internet!

Netflix was using Level3 for peering Netflix traffic. You benefited from that.

It is more complicated than that. Netflix was not, initially, buying peering directly. They were using Cogent and Level3's peering. Once Netflix did their own peering, things cleared up.

Ummmmmmm.... No. Peering costs. It is NOT true that ISP charges customers only. Well, unless you count Netflix and others as customers, in which case, yes, Netflix is charged.

I know you stated that you are a network admin, but apparently you don't know that the *sender* pays in a peering agreement. It has been this way for a long, long time.

Now it is true that some content providers did cut deals in the early days. For example, it was reported years ago that Yahoo! only payed for half of their transit costs because they built out their own national network and peered with large ISP's. AOL did something similar. But, traditionally, peering costs money. That is why there is something called "settlement-free peering" where both sides can all it "even" and skip paying each other. I know you *think* that the other side should pay, but that is not the reality. It is the way it is. You can argue for a new model, but you would be radically changing the fee model for the Internet.

Either way, this has NOTHING to do with Net Neurality!