ISP's are nothing more than distributors of content. They don't create or provide content, they just distribute it.

This is correct.

But if content creators want to make money from their content, then they should do so by CHARGING FOR THEIR CONTENT.

If that doesn't work because people don't want to pay, then too fucking bad. Getting my ISP to silently charge me for their content, which I apparently didn't want enough to pay for in the first place, is fuckery and ought to be illegal.

Yep.

Although never productive,

I love it when people who don't know what they're talking about correct me. The -ess morpheme was a productive morpheme for feminine nouns in English, round about the 16th century. There are a number of borrowings into English from French that use -ess(e) which are feminine forms, but was also used to form novel feminine words, such as authoress, giantess, Jewess, patroness, poetess, priestess, quakeress, tailoress, seamstress, and songstress - none of which are borrowings.

the -ess morpheme is used incorrectly in English words like actress to indicate a female noun.

Except that, of course, there's nothing incorrect about it - outmoded perhaps, but an obvious fact in the lexicon.

Consider the cigar and the cigarette.
Pirouette and pirouet.

Not sure what your point is; why not also consider:
leather and leatherette (a kind of fake leather), or
usher and usherette (a female usher).

Geekess would mean you are just a sub geek.

Why exactly? Although not productive anymore, the -ess morpheme is used in English words like actress to indicate a female noun.

Why does her choice of neologism mean she's a "sub geek?"

And sequels are safer bets.

Or this is just speculation and/or distorted information as the result of a long game of telephone, like the content of most articles you find posted on slashdot these days.

The same govt that plays politics with Schiavo's tubes

Whoa, there! Don't blame that political circus on the Govt as a whole - that was entirely GOP's political overreaching. Special intervention by the Governor of Florida, Bill Frist diagnosing a patient by video from the floor of the Senate, and then all the silly pandering and theatrics - that was all a play to the base.

Don't blame the entire government for the actions of some cynical jackoffs.

There is bankruptcy for municipalities, so they could possibly go bankrupt. I don't think it's ever been contemplated at a state level, though, or if that's even applicable to a whole state.

But then there's this:

Notwithstanding any power of the court, unless the debtor consents or the plan so provides, the court may not, by any stay, order, or decree, in the case or otherwise, interfere with--
(1) any of the political or governmental powers of the debtor;
(2) any of the property or revenues of the debtor; or
(3) the debtor's use or enjoyment of any income-producing property.

I'd be doubtful that the bankruptcy court could do anything but modify terms of debts and contracts, and altering laws - even those pertaining to the tax codes - is probably not possible. Not a lawyer, though.

I do live in the US, and formerly worked in the wireless communications industry. I've seen the soft, shitty underbelly of the national carriers first hand, and it's an awful and very depressing sight indeed.

But once LTE takes off, then there'll finally be an even playing field for competition between carriers and the consumers will reap the benefits.

*chortle*

This is totally out of left field. It's a good thing the US is chock-a-block with better wireless carriers and the iPhone is portable between them.

You're consenting to such monitoring/searches in exchange for use of the university's computing resources. You don't have to consent, but you also don't get to use the network.

Really, that's a terrible analogy.

If their competition is rushing to follow what Apple's doing by making iPhone-like devices, then it's more than just an impression that they're ahead.

The modal verb "could," indicates possibility; thus the GP is (trivially) correct.

Or are you denying that it's possible that a meteor strike could take down a commercial airliner?

Or a reader. I wonder how this correlation relates to causation.

Do you have evidence it's not just looking for the words that are common to all (or most) of the search results that come up?

Out of curiosity, do you work in NLP?

She's saying that a specific race and gender is superior (or rather she hopes it is) in interpreting law and rendering judgment.

No, that's not what she's saying. If you'd bothered to go read the speech - which, based on this post, I assume you haven't - you'll see what she's actually saying is that life experiences go into the interpretation of law and that a judge who's had experiences similar to those who come before him/her may be better able to render a wise decision in the case.

As I said, the context matters. If you read that single sentence which has gotten so much publicity in context, it doesn't mean at all what Sotomayor's critics have said it does.

This is not to say there are not legitimate reasons to be concerned about her candidacy, just that her being a racist isn't one of them.