Ok, so, strictly speaking, this is not the warp drive, it's the impulse drive. (Thrust to relativistic speed, not trans-light.) We're still waiting for the warp drive.

> The Vulcans will be here soon, swooping in like a returning Jesus Christ to save us from ourselves at long last, show us the true path of wisdom, and help us complete the application (an on-line PDF form, no doubt

...and the fields only accept input when used with certain elderly versions of Internet Explorer.

I've been thinking about this. It's true, but I wonder how things will change when all the cable companies are competing to provide you only with basic access to the internet. Then it becomes just another commodity, like phone or power, and there is very little room for differentiation.

The thing about basic internet is that it's very easy to quantify. You can get measurements of *true* performance from third parties for free. This makes it harder (but not impossible) for a company to claim 100/100 when measurements show it drops to 15/5 after a few minutes of sustained traffic, or drops to a lower tier based on whether traffic is streaming or torrenting.

We know that Comcast "shapes" traffic using criteria that makes paying for an ultra high speed connection pointless to the very customers who could best make use of that kind of connection. A competing service only has to say "we don't shape traffic". Ok, sign me up.

It's going to be an interesting world in the next few years.

I think it's one articulate positive review, something they can use in marketing materials.

> for the first time, the country's largest cable provider has more internet subscribers than cable subscribers

Oh thank God. Does this mean that the Comcast salescreature who leans on our doorbell monthly will stop trying to push cable on us? I have to es'plain to him each time that we have this thing called an An-Ten-Na that receives digital TV Foooorrrrrrr Frreeee-eeee-eee. ...and incidentally, anything not available on the antenna is (eventually) available on our internet connection (fiber to the door, courtesy Frontier, formerly courtesy Verizon).

He then loudly proclaims that Frontier is "getting out of the cable business" and our cable tv will "go away in a month". (He's been saying that for almost a year now -- eventually he could even be right.) I patiently explain (yet again) that we don't have cable TV. At all. Not even the basic package. Haven't since we sent back those horribly expensive multiroom DVR set top boxes that never really worked correctly.

So... I have to wonder, what's in store for me now? Internet is, basically, internet. I haven't noticed any particular "traffic shaping" on my current fiber connection (25/5, lowest tier, more than adequate), something that Comcast in particular is famous for. What can they offer me that I don't already have? 100 Mb/sec? Frontier will be happy to sign me up for that, for a price. I just don't happen to believe it's necessary. Besides, a 100 Mb link from Comcast.... what does that really get me? Faster access to pr0n? Any content I want to access is going to compete with Comcast's core business (cable tv) and is likely to be "shaped", so the faster speed buys me what, besides bragging rights?

It's going to be interesting how the salesguy's spiel is going to change (if at all) when internet connectivity is his main pitch. Internet connectivity is like... electricity. Just another commodity. At least, it should be, and we seem (finally!) to be going that direction.

You're right. In a similar vein, I ride a Harley, and conversations always lead back to "it's not leaking oil, it's marking its territory!" Har. Har. Yes Harleys used to leak oil. They were famous for it at one time. But they don't now, anymore than any motor vehicle does.

Similarly, in all the years I've been using Windows 7, I've yet to have a hang or bluescreen, and I don't reboot my machine unless absolutely necessary. But people still make jokes about the Windows 49.7 day issue. Just goes to show, it takes a LONG time to live down a tremendous goof.

Well, in fairness, only if you tried to do something with it.

"(psshsquawk)This is the Captain speaking, we are cruising at 30,000 feet, have a bit of a tail wind and will be in San Francisco a little ahead of schedule. ...Ummm... Ah.... I'm putting the seatbelt sign on now. Please return to your seats as we reboot the airplane.(pssshsquawk)"

...does it display the Windows 95 splash screen?

Right. But this is the era of "one weird trick" and "this revelation shocked scientists" and other wishful thinking. If you can't work "This is the most important video you will ever watch" into the article, nobody will pay attention.

from TFA, on "a back door just for the good guys": "Our founders understood that an Orwellian overreaching government is one of the most dangerous things this world could have"

Yes, agreed. But besides that, having the back-doors only available "for the good guys" is problematic for a number of other reasons, including:

a) "the good guys" in this administration may be replaced by "less than good guys" in the next administration

b) It only takes one "not so good guy" in the organization to take advantage of a back door for nefarious purposes (perhaps with the best of intentions)

c) The existence of a back door "just for the good guys" assumes that there is no exploit that anyone could figure out with today's technology up to the technology available up to the retirement of the last piece of equipment that contained that particular back door (which might be decades). When you design a system, do you take into account the technology that will become available to break into it 20 or 30 years in the future?

d) That the "keys" for such a universal back door would be so valuable that they would inevitably be sold by someone with access to the highest bidder, or because of political or religious motivations.

...and probably more reasons I haven't thought of at the moment. Put succinctly, a "back door" that's "only for the good guys" and remains such for any reasonable length of time is a virtual impossibility. That it exists at all means it will inevitably be exploited for personal or political gain at some point.

The FBI might be better served by just being better at cyber break-ins than anyone else. This would allow them to do the monitoring they desire, and have the added benefits of making them work for access, rather than just go fetch passwords out of a safe, and develop some in-house expertise that could be used against real cyber criminals.

Now that I think of that last part, if we really want the FBI to understand about cyber security, it's important from an evolutionary point to never give them easy access to anything.

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet today, but I'm not sure I see the connection between basing decisions on real published peer reviewed science and bankrupting big pharma.

Shrug. That works for me. Although we may have to work on them one agency at a time. Tell you what. You help with the EPA and I'll certainly help with the FDA (that sounds like a good idea anyway).

Basing policy decisions on data that can be peer reviewed -- why would this even be an issue? Isn't this better than "you can't do that, and we won't tell you why" or the nebulous "studies say". What studies? Secret studies. Ok...