If that was the case, why did Comcast and Verizon fight putting the OpenConnect Netflix system directly on their network avoiding the peering entirely?

It would of gotten rid of any of the peering issues and allowed faster service for everyone. Netflix offered to pay for the entire install and support as well so it would of cost Comcast and Verizon nothing, other than the right to shake down Netflix and the other peering services.

Also L3 offered to pay for the peering upgrades as needed, but both of them would rather try to shake down Netflix then you know actually solve the problem.

No on the other island. It's dredged from just off shore. At one time it was shipped in from California, but that ended a while a go.

You cannot deny access in Califorrnia either. Some people try to, but legally you can't.

They kind of function like unions anyway. The ABA decides who will be a lawyer and on what terms in order to join the bar of your local state. Same with the doctor licensing boards and the CPA boards for accountants.

Unlike industrial unions though they've codified their positions in to the laws and as such can be "voluntary association" instead of a mandatory union shop, even though they function just the same.

The aqueduct?

But then in the next paragraph, they say "here are the terms of the contract between the creator and the backer". I suspect this would be very problematic to enforce. You can't be both arms length, and dictating terms to two parties of a contract without also being a party. It is a logical contradiction.

Every lawyer does this every day when he or she is writing up a contract signed by other parties. The lawyer isn't involved unless one of the parties can prove that the lawyer performed malpractice in writing the contract.

All Kickstarter is offering is a standard contract and terms that both parties can agree to or not agree to. The standardize nature of the contract mean's it's easier to raise money and see who's raising money, so it's more likely everyone uses the standard contract. It's the parties involved choice on whether or not they sign sign the terms.

If your investments results in you having a claim on the assets of the company that failed and based on the seniority of your claim on the assets (i.e. some creditors will be paid in full before other creditors see a dime).

Kickstarter isn't an investment vehicle. They're up front that you have no claim on the assets of a failed company\project and as such if it fails you won't get anything (and conversely if they sell for a couple of billion dollars you will get nothing as well).

Since it is a public entity you'll likely run into a roadblock of what the law lets them pay for. Honestly it isn't much and the rules are rather inflexible due to some abuses that regularly come up (a conference in Vegas is likely to be huge red flag after this).

It sucks, but it's one of the trade offs for working for a public entity.

On RoadRunner I think you're confused, this was always a marketing brand name of Time Warner Cable Internet. At some point they stopped using the brand name, but the same people\ownership are still in place, even if it uses a different brand name now.

@Home was also different, in that Comcast and others paid them to build out their network and once it because big enough they just took the network back that they already paid for. This was in the original agreement with @Home and @Home still runs Internet services for other smaller ISPs (though it's now part of the Excite family).

There was no cancellation of franchise rights in either case.

I think you mean the F-14, and they're still flying them today even without access to spare parts for the last 35 years.

Given enough time all of the sites on the Internet will eventually be hacked?

No, the dealer margins on new cars is actually very small. Used cars are higher, but not that much. Most of the margin is actually taken by the manufacturer. It's the reason they are so slimy when selling them, they make next to nothing on them.

Most of a dealer's profit is on servicing and on any kickbacks from financing. The car its self, not so much.

It wasn't a carrier but a guided missile cruiser, the USS Yorktown.

In case you are wondering, non-competes are also not legal in California, unless the competition occurs as side work during your employment at the company, and generally are not considered legally enforceable in the U.S., unless they continue to pay your salary (plus scaled increases based on past increases, if any were performance related) during the lockout period. You can thank my cousin for this, as he took his non-compete to the supreme court (and yes, they payed him to take the year off at his regular salary to prevent him from going to a competitor).

This isn't true. Since they're based in state law they're actually enforceable in a lot of places (like Massachusetts and Maryland.) In fact, Massachusetts keeps doing studies on how Boston can be the next Tech center like Silicon Valley, and that's the number one thing they need to do is change their non-compete laws to match California's. Somehow they try some marketing plan instead of doing the change in the law. My guess there is some industry benefiting from the non-compete enforcement (like finance or something) which is why it never happens.

Back in the days when you could get regular CD-ROM drives I saw some setups that would put /usr, /usr/local and /opt on a CD-R and then boot of the CD. Since the drive couldn't write even trying to force a reboot to mount RW was pointless since the drive couldn't physically write to the drive.

The down side was it was a pain to operate like that since every patch required a new CD to be burned. Most gave up after too long once they realized how often they'd need to be patching thing.