But they are mean too. Their idea of safe sex is making sure they are somewhere where nobody can hear the screams.

I'll stick with the crash helmet and condoms.

At least it wasn't goatz or tubgirl.

Seriously, post the raw link and most browsers will make it a hyperlink.

Most of the developed world gets more for less.

The US bandwidth situation is largely due to longer local loops on average. I personally believe this is a historical issue due to CO centralization in the 1970's-1980's. But it may be other issues.

So lobbying can have good outcomes.

It is difficult to separate the feelings that someone bought a result you don't like from an objective analysis of whether what you wanted them to do was rejected after an analysis of the issues. In this case, a "tell me how much I owe" version of federal taxes -- I seem to recall that there was such a system in place many years ago (1970's?) where the taxpayer would send in a form saying "tell me what you want" and the IRS did. I don't hear much about that anymore, so I suspect that it died, and why it died may give a clue to why it wasn't a good idea to bring it back. I don't know.

Why not? If you grant that there are sometimes good outcomes from lobbying, just how do you write this new law prohibiting buggy whip makers while still allowing the useful lobbying?

What SHOULD be the rule is that decisions are made based on merit, and anyone who wants to lobby should have the right to make that speech.

Lol.. not only that, man in the middle, and that point about the NSA complaining so it isn't them strikes me odd. A lot of gay bashers are closet homosexuals complaining about the gays in order to stop you from thinking they are gay. It's one of the oldest forms of deciet- fake outrage while being behind it.

A Tor developer? Being paranoid? Shocking!

No, I'm sorry, when I say "evidence" what I mean is, and try to follow along here, "evidence". Not anecdotes. Not scary bumping noises in the night. Evidence.

'The NSA has been pressuring free software projects and developers in various ways,' the group says.

Did they provide evidence for this claim?

The people who this simplified "let the government figure it out and send back what they think I deserve" plan wouldn't apply to the vast majority of people who use accountants or probably even most of those who use TurboTax. They're using an accountant because they want every penny back that they deserve. Yes, I said deserve -- the legal amount.

There are already several free tax filing systems. TaxACT Online, H&R Block, The IRS, and even TurboTAX, the very company that is being slammed for allegedly standing in the way of free tax filing. If you are a die-hard, you can download the forms and send them in for the price of a stamp or two (my state forms, seven pages of paper, cost $0.70 to mail.)

I'm going to make our programmers code everything in machine language so they can learn to be gods.

Actually, forget machine language, they have to assemble the computer from discrete logic gates!

I'd say it is more like: Coase theorem.

What you "pay for" is "internet access UP TO X speed".

And the key is that there is oversubscription at the end user cable modem. If everyone was doing time multiplexed operations (like web browsing), each burst of your transmission would likely be near full speed. But when you and all your neighbors are watching Netflix at night at the same time, the network becomes oversubscribed and speeds drop.

I doubt it would get that far. Without anyone to objecct, they would win on summary which is before any of that is introduced

Gnome was never about that. Gnome was always about making the most FSF-compliant software. A true Stallmanite will tell you that making superior software is not as important as making "free" software. Gnu and the FSF have no room for pragmatism.

Gnome was, from the beginning, about politics first and technology second, It fell victim to the same bone-headed narrow focus that still plagues the FSF. Gnome came about not because anybody really needed it or asked for it, but because Miguel de Icaza was hot and bothered about the GPL. Its sole purpose was to be the anti-KDE (which was already usable, and based on a solid widget framework), because Stallmanites wanted to get their sanctimony on about Qt being distributed under a license that wasn't "free enough" for Richard Stallman and his fawning groupies. It was popular because the priesthood of the FSF got Red Hat to buy into their religion, which means that it was the default for many people's first Linux installs. It always felt a little bit fatter, uglier, slower, and clunkier than KDE. Its leaders were also always firm in their belief that they knew what you wanted better than you did, long before the "Gnome Shell" fiasco. I tried it once or twice in the 2.x days, and was really annoyed that there wasn't even a straightforward way to edit the stupid menu---evidently a deliberate design choice. It was like Apple, but worse. In short, Gnome was what you get when you cross the hubris of Steve Jobs with the hubris of Richard Stallman. I will not miss it.

Nobody would notice just one more group with their hands out.