You speak from experience, I would presume, or is it that you wish to monopolize all the pleasure for yourself and your ilk? However, from your description you are well versed in the techniques of extreme S&M, in that case I will gladly give it a pass.

will wipe the Taliban out. Capitalism at Work, i.e. Cost Efficient Bribery.

They are doomed I tell you.

Fine, but do you numbers include the necessary infrastructure costs (plus maintenance) of electrical distribution? Moreover, what of the skills required to safely and temporarily store radio active waste, which we still cannot deal with effectively in the so-called developed world? Local or distributed sources of power might appear less efficient from a global perspective, however, too often that view is skewed towards not including real, long term costs. Plus Uranium will become increasingly expensive were it used everywhere, as you suggest.

Please recalculate with more care. Also throw in the talent to build and maintain these power stations and clean up afterwards when they are obsolete.

I aborted my run in the former instance, because the measurement saw only a high burst speed that immediate degraded to piddling one, well below the supposed high rate being advertised. Little different this time, register and run with no real point to communicate. I will fore go this opportunity to help buttress spurious statistics in support of the status quo.

For example, Comcast has an initial burst speed in the range of 20 - 16 megabits per second. However, all to soon one passes a modestly set download quantity and the rate drops to its usual mediocre levels. I suspect, based upon my experience running a test, this fictional rate is seen as the base rate offered and published as such.

On one route through my town, we have computerized stop lights. However, I have noticed that with heavy traffic on the main route and build up on the cross streets, once stopped the traffic flow at the next light is effectively halted. Thus, without excessive speed most traffic signals thereafter will be red and effectively kill traffic flow on the main route through town.

I have to drive the route early when traffic is building, but not yet at a maximum density. In order to beat the waiting reds, I drive below (or nearly so) the posted speed limit. Moreover, my final approach to signals I use even lower speeds to have some momentum when the signal changes. Does not always work, but lessens the need to start from first gear at every light. However, sometimes I have no trouble at all flying through most lights unhindered, usually the mornings, but not all days.

the talent necessary to have created such a record does not become the thief's Intellectual Property. Thus, where corruption reigns and their are little or no alternative routes to justice, the results are no surprise.

* Not necessarily applicable to the authors cited in the article, however, when political connections and loyalty trump competence the same corrosive results were too obvious in states outside of China.

Just seeing 20,000 plus kilobits down and over 4,000 kilobits up were obviously burst speeds that are available for very short periods and amounts. Yes those are the real, however, they are maximum values seen rarely. I wonder too how many providers are detecting the test to skew the results upward to imaginary values. Unfortunately, I suspect more than just a few.

For a time I was receiving those advertisements along with my land line phone bill. However, too many other mails flowed in touting their regular ADSL, an offering based upon price alone, since their speed comparisons were only against dialup modem speeds. More recently those FIOS teasers have disappeared from my billings, hence, it appears FIOS will land in much fewer places than the initial advertisements seemed to imply.

I fondly referrer to him as da'Bomber. And picture the outcome as collateral damage inflicted upon nearby innocents.

What if there is not key or readily accessible ignition switch? The article I read in the NYT cited a CA state trooper with a Toyota rental that only had a push button starter. Thus, your suggestion is not a fully valid solution to a problem with an unpredictable onset with perhaps too limited a time to attempt solutions. By the way all in the car were killed when they had a collision at a intersection.

Both have deep economic interests, even taking the more benign view, to induce self deception. Sorry, the assertions may all be true, however, I would be more comfortable believing the blame if it came from a more independent group.

Adobe, see it's not me and McAfee take that MS for stealing our business. Perhaps those are not the primary motives this time, nonetheless I find it hard to believe they are not present. MS screwing up and denying it also would be no shock, but I partially withhold judgment. I suggest others consider doing the same.

Know some one really smart person that you respect that used an AOL email address? Just that one experience negates my dislike for AOL, hence, I lose my propensity to jump to a simplistic conclusion. Moreover, some of the same people have found it effective for their needs. Finally, who am I to judge.

A supposedly lame email address may not seem as dumb at some time in the future, if perhaps the company that has a theme of doing no evil decides it was mistaken. Say we discover a <i>cloud</i> over our heads, it knows many of our damaging secrets and we are blackmailed into doing its bidding. Our formally generous hosts have other goals and are no longer the cool location for our correspondence. It need not be the company alluded to that follows this path, any cloud would do. However, in contrast just a Lame E-Mail Address would be much deferrable if only we had one to protect ourselves from our superficiality and self deluding knowledge.

It is so much easier to judge others on simple external signs and ignore the harder task of judging the value of the person.

Mass societal regression where only a self chosen elite lives well. Looking at the U.S. political scene, such a scenario is just a bit too plausible. From my slight bit of reading of Stephenson's latest, that might well be our future, however, his book focuses upon the distant reawakening of human intellect.

> Google is doing the best thing they can do, which is to ignore News Corp.'s words in public ...

I disagree, the wider public should be informed that the News Corporation could easily stop nearly all indexing by simply barring Google and most others by name. Since, they persist in making loud noises about their property , their inaction should be cited exposing their disingenuous posturing. Perhaps Google wishes to avoid a public fight with a bully, however, opinion could tilt against them. If, for example, the News Corporation were to highlight a perceived misstep by Google along with some ready cash to buy the legislation and legal precedent of their choice. Thus, being too timid now, could be very costly in the future.

Regarding the BBC article, they could have checked in-house easily to be told that Murdoch's bluff and bluster had no factual basis. While I tend to give greater credibility to the BBC, I have found their obvious failing really baffling. So I sometimes suspect they ignore the obvious purposely.