I have a feeling that there are some people who would take a polite "You're wrong and I disagree with you for the following reasons . . ." as trolling.

I was going to say that "you're a coward who is poisoning our national life" is a fine example, but that's good too.

...what do they call the ones from a great distance?

Not at all. His message is, if you think it's real, then start doing science! He doubts it's real because the people who claim it is refuse to even try actual science -- you know, that thing where you document experiments and publish with sufficient levels of detail that allow the results to be independently verified.

Even if you think it's real, you have to admit that what they're doing is not science. Or at least, you have to admit that if you're honest and know what "science" is. It might be invention, but it absolutely isn't science.

Sort of, but most of it's waste energy. Show me a process where the amount of power you receive back into the power-grid from setting off an H-bomb is greater than the energy you used constructing it...

Ah, yes. One of Heinlein's most unrealistic, least believable premises ever, and that's saying a lot.

Meanwhile, in the real world, your invention will be reverse-engineered in a matter of months if not sooner.

Then you write your systemd log in text format. If you can't figure out how to do that, you're not qualified to be reading the log file output.

It takes less space, especially if you're archiving them for long periods, causes less I/O in general and less disk fragmentation over time as you compress and delete them every day/week. Note that indeed, you do the same on most classic BSD or SysV init systems by compressing the old logs, requiring you to use a tool to dump them to text if you want to read them later... but that's not as efficient.

Do you turn off the compression of logs on your boxes, or do you admit that having to use a tool to read them isn't so big a deal when you aren't grasping at straws to justify why you hate a particular piece of software?

If your scheme to make money from Bitcoin involves giving real money to someone else who's scheme to make money from Bitcoin involves getting real money from you, then looking at past history of Bitcoin money-making schemes it's highly likely that out of all the people around the table, you are the sucker.

The government already picked a winner years ago, just like they did with electrical service, natural gas service where offered, and telephone service, when it first allowed a cable company use of the right of way to either bury wires or string them on poles (or bury pipes in the case of a gas company).

Once one company is in that position, the economics of another one coming along and also running wires in order to maybe get some of the first company's customers to switch over is usually considered unlikely to provide a sufficient return on investment to make it worthwhile.

Besides, having 37 different companies digging up your yard every other week would likely cease to feel like FREEDOM! in short order.

What about the off-site staff?

Not a one is actually a small, well featured phone. They are simply old and/or reduced spec phones every bit as big as the first wave of large phones.

Generally true, but I've been hearing good things about the Sony Xperia mini/compacts. At least, I'm hoping that's true because when I have to replace my current 4.3" phone, I'm not keen on going much larger...

I think a general rule of thumb is that once you hit 5 digits of price, a test drive is never too much to ask.

That's really just a subset of an even more general rule of thumb, "a fool and his money are soon parted".

Silk Road Kingpin or not, I'm rooting for Ross here.

I wonder what the people he attempted to have murdered think about all this?

If we follow the arguments in the article to their logical conclusion, then you're talking about an accusation coming from a bunch of criminals. Indeed, one might argue that it's a criminal conspiracy against him.

If they're going to act like criminals, then the government has no credibility in any accusation they make against Mr. Ulbricht.

Now, he likely is a criminal scumbag who did some very stupid and/or shady things, but given the choice between going after one shady guy or an entire organization of criminals, which do you think is a better use of law enforcement resources?

There is nothing in the article to indicate that he is a lawyer.

If anything, it implies that he's an accountant.

Who has a lawyer who has contacted Comcast about the matter and received a most inadequate response.

....that he doesn't have the training and talents and experience and instincts and reflexes of even the original Bourne of the excellent cold war era Ludlum books, much less the character from the more recent movies or Eric Van Lustbader's ridiculously ret-conned amalgam of the two in the current books.

Which means he's in more danger if ever attacked and has more to fear from it.

Changes require systematic, reliable evidence, not emotional expressions . . . In the wake of more than 3 million comments...

3 million people having a coherent opinion on the subject is as systematic, reliable evidence as any other survey of public opinion. That the bulk of those 3 million are likely saying that network neutrality is a really good idea should be considered a fairly reliable data point. I'm not sure it would be a good idea for the FCC to just brush it off.