Please let me know if I'm wrong, as it's certainly possible. What the proposal allows for is that say Netflix, or Youtube, or any other content provider that would utilize a lot of bandwidth, would be allowed to purchase direct physical lines to individual large ISPs for that ISP's customers instead of sending data over the Internet backbone. The end result would be a faster connection for that provider and those end users, for ultimately less cost.

So what we're dealing with here is a content provider that adds extra bandwidth to the Internet (albeit for a specific purpose), and pays for it, for the intended purpose of saving money for all parties involved while improving the end customer experience. Can someone please tell me why this is a problem? Or am I reading it incorrectly?

I do agree that from a technical point of view, the provider is purchasing a higher tier connection from the ISP for an improvement in throughput, but this in no way impacts any other service. I can envision the standard net neutrality argument that would allow an ISP to possibly extort a content provider, although I can't imagine why they would ever want to do so, considering peering agreements favor the consumer of data. Even so, tweaking the rules to disallow the restriction of data would make more sense than forbidding a willing provider to selectively choose to improve the experience for a specific group of customers above and beyond what is currently possible through the Internet for the same cost.

Dude, that is absurd. Even a BURKHA / ABAYA is vulnerable from some angle.

Obviously, I imagine an upskirt picture does not reveal any more than what you would see at a beach in any western country. I think the issue is that, a person being made to reveal more of herself than she is consenting to, to a person she does not know, and usually without her knowledge. It would be the equivalent of someone being forced to take off her skirt in public without her consent.

Also, what if the woman is not wearing any underwear? It is her business if she is, or is not, and by wearing a skirt she has a reasonable right to privacy in that matter.

I think that bike is pretty cool, and I've been lucky to never have a bike stolen, but at that price tag, they better have put a LOT of thought into security before I would consider buying one.

Also, is it just me or does that bike scream hipster?

Most decent programmers will find themselves in your position at some point in their careers. I did too. I know nothing of your financial situation and commitments (mortgage/family/etc.) but don't take a pay cut if you can at all help it. The fact that you feel any uneasiness would seal the deal.

I would readily agree to a pay cut in only the following situations :

1) Need a job desperately and gotta make rent. Hopefully this situation never arises
2) Major promotion or opportunity in a company I strongly strong believe in. The idea being that I will work my ass off for peanuts, but believe in my heart that I will come away with a huge sum of money at the end, or the ability to make a huge sum of money.
3) I am going to work for or with someone who is absolutely exceptional and is going to be teaching me something I couldn't already learn on my own.

It does not sound like you are getting any of those three. If you are bored, keep looking for a better or different job. In the meantime, If you want to scratch your intellectual itch, do it on the weekends.

You have my 2 cents worth.

You guys are so lame. Its just a video game.

Why don't you go outside and play some Frungy?

I am sick and tired of this racism against Mexican and latin american people. I do not find your racist joke funny. It is also perpetuating a completely inaccurate stereotype. Google "Mexican fertility rate" and educate yourself.

US Fertility Rate = 1.89 Births per woman
Mexican Fertility Rate = 2.28 Births per woman

US Life expectancy = 78.64 years
Mexican Life expectancy = 76.89 years

I am not Mexican or latin american. Mexico, and most of latin america, have a LOT of social, cultural and economic issues. But give them some respect, they aren't backward savages like most american's seem to believe.

No its not. The blockchain is currently almost 12GB. Last week I downloaded a game that was 28GB. Thats just one game. 1TB hard drives are $60.

Yeah, if you are getting started it takes a fair amount of time for the blockchain to come down. If you are in a rush, just use Electrum (which will be up and running in 30 seconds) until the blockchain has finished downloading.

Plus, bitcoin devs are working on ways to prune the blockchain.

Blockchain size is not something you need to worry about.

Like in so many other cases a backup would have solved this problem. Both a digital backup and a paper wallet (stored in a very safe place) is required when dealing with any amount of Bitcoin.

> It was good advice at the time.

Actually, no it wasn't. Good advice would have been: Use your brain. Research Bitcoin until you understand how it works, what it is and what it isn't. Then, decide if it is workable and worthy. If it is, decide how much you are willing to risk investing in it. Don't invest more than you can afford to lose. Note that this is good advice for any new technology.

This is what I did early in 2011. At first I was like most people: "That can't possibly work." But I researched and I found it could and DID work. And I wanted it to succeed, so I did whatever I could to help it (which included investing in it).

When I finally figured out what it was all about I got a weird feeling. I can best describe the feeling as "This Is Important". I got the same feeling when I first found out about the Internet.

You must have been trying to get a reservation at 'Seize'. That's not even the real phone number for reservations... The real number's a secret, closely guarded by people they deem... acceptable

"I lost all my documents because my hard drive died."

Now think about which of these is most likely to happen, and which one is worse when it does happen.

I find enabling Gnome fallback mode easier than changing distribution.

Much of the Constitution was deliberately written in broad terms, for reasons of futureproofing.

Certainly, not even the smartest attendee of the Constitutional Convention could have ever foreseen DNA tests or GPS tracking or electronic snooping. It wasn't even something they could have conceivably imagined at the time. But the Fourth Amendment is clear on the matter nonetheless:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

(emphasis added)

DNA is, perhaps, one of the most comprehensive pieces of information contained in one's body, one's "person". It can reveal everything from family lineage (ancestry, siblings, and descendants), to congenital diseases or conditions, to the color of one's eyes. It is not equivalent to a fingerprint, which in itself tells you next to nothing about the owner of that finger other than as an identification. The Fourth Amendment is clearly intended to restrict violations of one's person in that way without justifiable cause, even if the particular method of violation is one the Founders would never have conceived of.