At least it's some choice... the same ones I have. If I could half of comcast's speed from someone else, I'd be there - I already canned their asses for the lousy TV service I got, but if I want to work at home occasionally then I need better than what I can get from AT&T. Aside from them, there's satellite (really expensive and high latency), and nothing else.
As I mentioned in another post - I am Comcast's customer, not Netflix or Hulu or anybody else. I am the customer and if I am choosing to use the bandwidth that I paid for by using Netflix, then that's my prerogative. If Comcast has a problem with it, the problem is with me, not the content provider I chose.
That's not true (nor is the AC response to your post). My initial knee jerk reaction was certainly that it's anti-business and over regulation (read that again - over regulation is a problem; regulation might be needed, but over-regulation is bad). But after giving it some thought, I am completely on board with the idea of net neutrality. I am my ISP's customer, not the content provider. If Netflix is using my ISP's bandwidth, it's because I, as the customer, requested it - and I'm paying for it. If my ISP doesn't like how I'm using the service that I am paying for, their beef is with me.
The obvious reason they want to go after the content provider is because then their internal competitor to the service (in this case, video streaming) gets an unfair advantage... even if they're "paying," it's only "funny money" if they are owned by the same parent company. If, however, they went after me, then both services are equally penalized. That's a second strike in favor of net neutrality.... what the ISPs want is obviously anti-competitive... that is NOT something a free market person supports. I MIGHT support "anti" net neutrality if the ISP was barred from competing against services that they would otherwise be charging access fees for... but even then my former complaint is still valid.
Ubuntu numbering is a decent way to do it, but names only work in conjunction with number, like saying "Ubuntu 13.10" followed by "Saucy Salamander." When people say things like "Oh, that's not supported in Gutsy Gibbon, the feature was added in Natty Narwhal." I want to whack them with a whacking stick.
I realize there's a lot of "name" supporters here, and it's fine when used in conjunction with version numbers, but there's too many products with oh-so-zany naming that it's just not funny or cool anymore, it's just confusing.
First, I'm in the camp that thinks you don't even need headlights the vast majority of the time - that headlights serve more the purpose of other people seeing you than the other way around, in most circumstances... no not always, but in most common driving conditions for the vast majority of people.
Anyway, I recently faced heavy repairs on my aging vehicle, or getting a new one. I ended up with repairs, but the standout in very fuel efficient models I was looking at was the 2014 Mazda 3. So I know this technology is probably available elsewhere, but it has available steered headlights... the lights turn with the wheel: Youtube demonstration video. This seems like a much better solution than brighter or wider light distribution for the scenario you're describing.
Agreed... the fact of the matter is that, if you don't live out in the boondocks, you don't even need headlights to see at all. In most driving conditions the biggest reason for headlights is so OTHER people can see YOU. There's a reason so many people "forget" to turn on their headlights... because they don't need them to see!
Of course, there are areas where you may need them... there's a few unlit roads where I am, where I actually use my high beams if no one else is coming, but by and large, most cars need only be lit so they can be seen by others.
Yes... for certain values of A and B. If you're delivering to a business in a building with a helicopter port. Delivering to a front porch is entirely different. Then there's the matter of how many will be in the air... maybe Amazon only has a few for "important" immediate deliveries that people are paying a lot extra for, but then if Amazon does it, how many other companies will be allowed to do it?
How many drones can you allow in the air? Like segways... might be OK if a few people used them, but if everybody did, then it could be really bad.
What happens when a motor fails? When a wind gust between buildings causes one to smash into the side of a building? When it crashes into heavy traffic (automotive, pedestrian, or otherwise)?
I'm a big fan of the Golden Rule ("Do unto others..."), but, to me, a corollary is also "What if everybody did it?" That's the question, IMO.
Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.