your traffic wasn't interesting enough

How interesting is interesting enough? Interesting enough to spend $5 on? $0.05? GCHQ redirected the slashdot site for Belgacom users to their own servers, so slashdot readers are at least that interesting, and mass observation programs like PRISM make it cheaper and cheaper to watch you.

Linux's MD raid10 isn't the same as RAID 1+0, so I'm not entirely sure it would be affected by this.

Unless simply handling money doesn't result in your body absorbing enough cocaine

It's a safe bet that whoever rubbed the cocaine on the money in the first place likely has enough of it in them to be rubbing the metabolites on the money too.

Ad blockers would not have been necessary if we didn't have ad networks distributing malware.

The selection of index.html for URLs ending in "/" is handled server-side (that's how we can have index.php index.cfm, index.pl and so on).

Really, what was needed was for display-size to become a standardized request header so that the server can select a default based on the display size.

Especially when there's a perfectly cromulent form that swishes out from the side to let you edit any other bookmark when you "check" that tile.

Who cares about buying 51% of the stock when you can hire 100% of the employees away.

if an app pretends to offer a service and then can't deliver, or provides data that leads to bad decisions

It's more than that. How about an app that offers the ability for a doctor to purge the record of a certain bad decision? How about a financial app that allows double bookkeeping, if someone was so inclined to hide their embezzlement? How about a default password of 12345, after all it's the user's responsibility to fix it?

There are plenty of ways to make apps that do the wrong thing, correctly.

Meanwhile a westlake will explain which felony exactly is committed by a person unable to pass on years of experience in the span of months, without the benefit of a degree/training in education.

Authoritarians, of both the "left" and "right" wings, love to use government force

Agreed, look no farther than reactions to the war on drugs. A local government banning Big Gulps because it's bad for you is government overreach into areas of your life and people should have the personal responsibility not to overuse, but we need to spend billions of dollars at the federal level to prevent people with no personal responsibility from smoking a plant they grew in their own backyard because it's bad for you.

I know I do.

Yeah, I can imagine you sitting there after a car wreck, horribly mangled, holding onto consciousness just so you can make sure that they take you to the best hospital. Wait! Is this ambulance fully accredited and received at least an A rating from Consumer Reports? No? Well, I'll just wait here for one that is.

Actually my suggestion was to let people decide whether or not to let GOG try to change it since not all users trust apps to change the firewall, not all firewalls allow apps to change it, and so on. Maybe for maximum paranoia there could be a setting that hides the uPNP option completely so nobody accidentally checks it.

Invitations are absolutely an awesome feature, but you know what would blow my socks off? If the GOG launcher handled all the bullshit firewall crap.

I still get games where the authors have failed to bother to document the port(s) their server uses or where they think it's awesome to have the server start up on a random port from 1024 to 65534. Usually 30 pages deep in the game forum there's a thread where you find posts like "i forwarded UDP 19228 and the server showed up on the browser for 30 seconds but nobody could connect and I couldn't get it to show up again after a restart". If, along with all the other brilliant work GOG has done to get the games working in current versions of windows, GOG's launcher popped up a window like steams cdkey window that said

Hosting a multiplayer game requires these ports:
    TCP 12421, TCP 12422, UDP 20000-20400
  [x] Use uPNP to request forwarding these ports on my firewall
  [x] Do not show this again
    [ OK ] [ Cancel ]

I think my socks loosened a bit just thinking about it.

Good question. The main problem with all of these is proof. How do you determine intent of a dropped packet? Was it congestion, a hardware failure, or did the ISP have it in for that packet specifically? The guy screaming "I'm gonna kill you!" is the top suspect when someone turns up dead, but the cops still have to prove he did it.

When Comcast was using Sandvine Comcast denied, denied, denied that they were doing anything to degrade their users' internet experience. It took the EFF and a massive coordinated traffic logging effort to prove that Comcast was lying about intentionally disabling Lotus Notes (and BitTorrent) connections.

a costlier service

There is very little technical reason for a byte of amazon to cost more than a byte of wikipedia. Once those packets reach the backbone networks (a process that Amazon and Wikipedia both pay for through their ISPs) they're essentially identical, except in the fact that Amazon has more money and they have more to lose if something were to happen to that packet, and that would be a real shame.

The original plan was simply "neutrality". All bytes are equal. More bytes can cost more money, but those additional bytes are equal too.

And that's where it started falling apart. Bytes delivered by copper all cost the same, bytes delivered by fiber all cost the same, bytes delivered by avian carrier all cost the same. Bytes delivered wirelessly... well, they cost the same too but some major neutrality players were doing deals with telcos to provide some services free on phones. Which was more important to them, neutrality? Or getting wikipedia to the mobile masses with no data charges? Well, as long as the net was mostly neutral (except when it suited them) it's a good thing, right? But hypocrisy is the moral rot, and rot spreads quickly.

Personally, I have two horses in this race: in my personal life I'm an internet user, at work I develop web applications. I had my experience with value-subtracted ISPs years ago. Before Time Warner traded an agreement not to compete here with Comcast for an agreement from Comcast not to compete elsewhere, one of our customers had Time Warner Cable at their office. One day I get an angry call from them that we're down. I check the status of our servers and say "no, we're up" and they insist we're down and I ask them if we're down why are they the only customer calling me. They insist. I do a traceroute from the development server and everything looks fine to me. They continue to insist. I remote into their computer and sure enough, the application isn't loading. I open a ticket with our colocation facility to let them know that some routing is fucked up specifically between IPs A and B. It's closed: nothing wrong. I tell them to call their ISP. TWC insists its on our end. I roll my eyes and mirror their database on the development server and call it a day. Day 2: we're "down" again. Neither the main server nor the development server are reachable from that customer now. TWC insists its on our end. I set up a mirror on our mail server. Day 3: we're down again. We have a three-way call with TWC. TWC insists it's on our end. I tell them that every single one of our customers using DSL are having no problems at all and offer to pay the cancellation fee so our customer has internet that works. (By this time I had reviewed all of our server logs and discovered that they were literally our only user in the city coming from TWC, everyone else had DSL). Tier 2 support is on the phone in 15 seconds. Now, this is probably about a decade or so ago, so these are not the exact words used but I won't forget the general gist of it any time soon:

Tier2: We changed a setting in their router to allow them to access their "business application". Everything should be fine now
Qz: Thank you. For future reference if we have other customers on TWC what setting is this so we can make sure it's configured correctly and avoid this problem in the future?
Tier2: Oh, it's not a setting that the customer can change.

So, what is the intent of a setting that blocks access to an ISP user's commonly used websites?