ISP should be limited to purchasing more bandwidth and using anti-bufferbloat AQMs, but no throttling or QoS.

QoS may be hard. But it's necessary, because streaming and TCP don't play well together.

Streaming requires low latency, low jitter, low packet loss, and has a moderate and limited (in absence of compression, typically constant) bandwidth. TCP, when being used for things like large file transfers, increases speed to consume ALL available bandwidth at the tightest choke point, and divide it fairly among all TCP connections using the choke point. It discovers the size of the choke point by expanding until packets are dropped, and signals other TCP connections by making their packets drop. The result that TCP forces poor QoS onto streams unless the infrastructure is massively oversized.

This can be fixed by a number of traffic management schemes. But they all have this in common:
  - They treat different packets differently.
  - The infrastructure can be misused for competitive advantage and other unfair business practices.

The PROBLEM is not the differing treatment of different packages (which can help consumers), but the misuse of the capability (to hurt consumers).

So IMHO an "appropriate legal remedy", under current legal theories, is not to try to force ISPs to treat all packets the same (and break QoS), but to limit the ISPs ability and incentives to misuse the capability.

So the appropriate regulation is not communications technical regulation, but consumer protection and antitrust law:
  - Consumer fraud law should already cover misbehavior that penalizes certain traffic flows improperly. (What is "internet service" if it doesn't handle whatever end-to-end traffic is thrown at it, just for starters) Ditto charging extra for better packet treatment rather than just fatter pipes, charging anyone other than their base customers for the service, or heavily penalizing packets of customers (or the customers themselves) whose usage is problematic for the ISP but within the advertised service. If current law needs a tweak, the enforcement infrastructure is already there should Congress choose to commit the tweak and use it.
  - Penalizing packets of competitors for its own services, or giving appropriate handling to its own packets of a type and not to that of others, is anticompetitive behavior. Indeed, having such services in the same company AT ALL, let alone forming conglomerates that include both "content" creation and Internet service distributing it, is a glaring conflict-of-interest, of the sort that led to the historic breakups of AT&T and Standard Oil. Antitrust law is up to the problem: Just use it.

(I put quotes around "appropriate legal remedy" above, because I think that a free market solution would be even better. Unfortunately, we don't have a free market in ISP services, due to massive, government-created or government-ignored barriers to entry. And we aren't likely to see one in the near future - or EVER, unless the government power-wielders get it through their skulls that "competition" and its free-market betnefits don't kick in until there are at least three, and usually until there are four or more, competitors for each customer. (This "Two-is-competition, Hey! Where's the market benefits?" error has been built into communication law ever since the allocation of bandwidth for the early, analog, AMPS cellphone service.) With only two "competitors", market forces drive them to cartel-like behavior and all-the-market-will-bear pricing, without any collusion at all.)

"...after music streaming service Grooveshark was shutdown"
Why in hell are you using a noun when a verb is required?

This is how language evolves.

Sometimes you can convince people to drop a useful construct or misspelling - like by telling them it makes their arguments less convincing. Other times it's like trying to sweep back the tied.

Are you going to host it in Antigua?

Come on. This misinformation is 30 years old already. Why can't we let it die already?

Contrary to popular belief, Haimes never claimed that a CAT scan had caused her to lose her psychic powers. In fact, the often alluded-to CAT scan never took place. Haimes only claimed that the headaches resulting from her allergic reaction prevented her from earning a living as a psychic.

On the other hand, I could see an MRI actually destroying a hypothetical human magnetic navigation sense.

  - A number of animals, including birds, are documented to have a magnetic sense they use in navigation.
  - Bacteria are known to migrate vertically using the earth's field to align them as "dipping needles" so their cilia drive them downward to lower-oxygen water.
  - The bacteria obtain their magnetic alignment by depositing crystals of magnetitie of a size that will hold no more than a single magnetic domain, and thus be automatically magetized. New crystals are deposited next to old, making them align in the same direction. The row of crystals is a strong enough magnet to align the bug like a compass needle. The row is normally split when the bug reproduces, so the two new bugs are both magnetized the same way, rather than one getting a 50/50 chance of swimming the wrong way. (No doubt the occasional offspring gets none and has to take the chance - which let the species survive magnetic reversal events.)
  -Some nerve cells in a number of animals contain such magnetite particles, leading to the speculation that these may be the basis for a magnetic sense.
  - Among such nerve types is on in the human nose, leading to the speculation that some humans may be able to "smell" magnetic fields (or have some magnetic sense in some OTHER group of neurons that ALSO produces the particles and that those in the nose are vestigial mis-triggering of the mechanism, or that an organism in their ancestry may once have had a magnetic sense, of which this is a vestigial remanent.)
  - (I have a small number of personal, anaecdotal, experiences that lead me to believe that I once had a magnetic sense that was input to my brain's location processing, but at a priority far below visual observation. These all occurred before I ever had an MRI.)
  - If some nerves do detect ambient magnetism by monitoring mechanical forces originating in magnetitie particles, the strong magnetic field of an MRI machine might be expected to disrupt this by modifying the magnetization of the particles, or by yanking on then so strongly they disrupt, or even kill, the nerves in question.

So if humans DO have a magnetic sense of this form, it might actually be destroyed by exposure to, and especially testing in, an MRI machine.

TFA said: "Otherwise, it risks having users (slowly but surely) switch to more secure platforms that do give them updates in a timely manner."

I'm curious what platforms those might be.

The only one I'm (slightly) familiar with at the moment is Replicant, which is an all-open port of Android - with support for a limitied - and (thus?) somewhat pricey (when even available)- handful of platforms.

("All-Open" being defined as "Functionality dependent on binary blobs we don't have open source replacements for is left out of the distribution. You might get it working by installing proprietary modules. But we think that's a bad idea / counterproductive / reduces incentive for people to MAKE open source replacements, so we don't recommend it or provide instructions." i.e. do a web search for somebody who figured out how to do it if you want, say, the front camera, WiFI, or Bluetooth to work and forget about GPS for now. (v4.2 on Samsung s3))

Now I think that's the right approach. And I'd love to see more support or help for the project.

But are there others? If so, what are they?

Good. Now we've gone from "they're all scum" to "some of them (possibly including Rand Paul") are good and trying but the Repubican machine and its operators will block them."

At this point we're mostly on the same page.

Ron Paul is clearly one of those good guys. And the Neocons controlling the R party machine (one of the four major factions) steamrollered him and his supporters (sometimes violently), and changed the rules to make it even harder for a grass roots uprising to displace them.

Two debates are going on right now. One is between working through the R party (is it salvagable?) or coming in with a "third" party - either an existing one or a new one (is that doable or do the big two have too much of a lock?)

The other is whether Rand is a sellout to the Neocons or if he's just more savvy than his dad and trying to look non-threatening to them in order to get the nomination. Andrew Napolitano, who knows him personally, says he knows him to be a genuine liberty advocate, and I trust A. N. on this subject.

If nobody knows how it works, how did the guy invent it?

LOTS of stuff gets invented without the inventor knowing HOW it works, underlying physics wise. All that's necessary is to notice THAT it works, work out some details of "if you do this much of this you get that much of that", and engineer a practical gadget.

As they say, most fundamental discoveries don't go "Eureka!", they go "That's odd ..."

this gem ... hidden in the article:

"... whether it is possible for a spacecraft traveling at conventional speeds to achieve effective superluminal speed by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it. ..."

They've been playing at that for a while. It would allegedly work by creating a condition of cosmic expansion behind the craft and its converse in front of it, so the spacecraft is in a bubble where it's running slower than lightspeed (i.e. stopped) but the cosmic expansion and contraction regions behind and ahead of it each total to the opposite sides retreating or advancing faster than light (which is allowable).

I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to fall out of this - or anything. Effective superluminal translates to "Sending messaages into the past." and "Violating causality." if you pick your reference frames correctly. So I expect flies to appear in this ointment at some point: Like something broken about what happens at the sides, needing big-bang energy levels (and not being able to transfer them between the front and back so they're free), or not being able to set up the condition in front because the agency making it happen must involve actual superluminal signal propagation.

Nevertheless, an "electric motor" that works by pushing against virtual particle-antiparticle pairs (or the total mass of the matter in the universe, or of an inverse-square weighting-by-distance of it so it's mostly the local stuff, or dark matter, or the neutrino background, or whatever), instead of ejected exhaust, is just DANDY! Let's see if they can make it work for real at human-palpable, nontrivial, efficiencies and power levels.

When the rubber meets the road, people like Rand Paul are not actually in favor of downsizing the government. They just want to eliminate restrictions on business and aid to the poor.

You have the liberty movement confused with their arch enimies the neocons.

A) The rules are already there and need no new legislation. They just need willpower in the agencies involved.

B) Though not as idealistic as his father, Rand has substantial libertarian leanings - and is a major figure in the Liberty Movement. As such his main goals are to downsize the government and free the people

Downsizing the government means you DON'T add new restrictions to "fix" every new manifestation of a political issue. Doing that keeps the government growing. Instead you:
  1) Oppose ANY INCREASE in the government's power and limitations on what people can do.
  2) Look for ways to "solve" problems by REMOVING government power and meddling where possible, or just use the EXISTING powers in the ways they were intended when a "solve by downsizing" isn't feasible.

In theory, the FCC shouldn't need to regulate the internet at all, but because other government has created a wholly fucked up system, I agree that it's necessary at this point for them to step in.

If any branch of government should step into this, it's the FTC and the Justice Department, not the FCC.

Network Neutrality conflates two issues: Traffic management and anticompetitive behavior. Some packets SHOULD be treated differently than others, in order to make diverse services "play well together". (Example: Streaming vs. File Download.)

The problem arises when an ISP uses the tools to penalize the competition to its own company's and partners' services, extort extra fees, and otherwise engage in non-technical nastiness through technical means.

The proper regulatory regimes are antitrust and consumer fraud. These are the province of the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, not the FCC.

The FCC is using this as a power-grab on the Internet, in direct contravention of Congress' authorization. THAT is what Rand Paul is opposing.

CustomerP are generally too cash poor to be good customers. They are going to nickel and dime you for any project that you do for them because they are either too cheap to invest in newer technology or too poor to do so.

Latest statistics indicate that Internet Explorer has less then 15-20% of market share, with versions older then IE 10 being just 2.5% of the market. Looks like IE 6 is under 1% now.

It was similar arguments that massively hampered the adoption of Linux, Netscape/Firefox, .... Too few users, too cheap, expecting too much frree stuff. No money to spend.

It's one of the reasons general adoption took - and is still taking - so long.

It's also one of the reasons that companies that DID support them ended up with an edge on their competition, becoming some of the big-name companies in their markets.

Becoming market-dominant and ubiquitus includes not dropping substantial chunks of customers because you perceive them as "marginal". If you support 90+ percent of the market and your competition supports 70%, you keep getting little extra advantages. The outcome of competition is driven by tiny margins.

Aspartame has problems for some people (like my wife and brother-in-law) and not for others (like me).

Sucralose has problems for some people (like me) and not for others (like my wife).

Seems to me the thing for Pepsi to do is to bring out another formula - with a different name - using Sucralose, put them in the stores side-by-side (they get a LOT of shelf space to play with), and let the customers decide.

Changing the formula of an existing brand strikes me as a stupid move. I suspect Pepsi is about to have it's "New Coke!" moment...

Oh well, Diet Coke is still better anyways.

The radio story where I first heard about this claimed that Coke was considering doing the same to Diet Coke.

The bit you're apparently not grasping is something called a spatial light modulator. ... Couple it with a microwave radar or ultrasound sonar, and you can track individual raindrops and then cast shadows on them.

Then construct an object that appears to the system to be raindrops and you can put an invisible obstacle in the road. B-b