Similar to what Aureal was doing with A3D back in the 90s, but obviously not tied to a specific piece of hardware like back then.

I enjoyed the Quake 3 demo, but it while it works decently well with just the player in the level, it sort of falls apart during the deathmatch. I think that's probably because the stock Q3 sounds have a bit of reverb baked in. I would love to hear what it would sound like with a complete set of reverb- and echo-less sound effects, so the RAYA can handle everything by itself, instead of working in top of the baked-in reverb.

That you don't consider what happened to you completely insane, just speaks to how aggressive and violent your society has become.

Not that mine is any better. The other day, police were on a veritable manhunt with automatic weapons drawn, to search for an alleged "terrorist with a bomb". Turns out it was a middle-eastern looking dude with a beard, on his way to his English exam on the subject of terrorism. He was already nervous because of his upcoming exam, so when his bag got knocked over, he made sure to check the contents. He was also reading a book about 9/11, the subject of his studies. Some busybody on the train called the police and all hell broke loose.

That the common reaction to all of this was "well, he shouldn't look like a TERRORIST, then!" saddens me enormously.

So you're perfectly OK with the police drawing guns and aggressively approaching people, just because they happen to fit some vague description of a presumed criminal?

Because a police officer walking around with his/her eyes open wouldn't be able to spot you doing something possibly illegal, completely unlike a camera?

There are divided opinions on the subject, and almost everyone who considers it anti-Semitic is looking at it from a very modern perspective, influenced by the happenings of the 20th century in particular.

Quoting Francis Wheen on the subject: "Those critics, who see this as a foretaste of 'Mein Kampf', overlook one, essential point: in spite of the clumsy phraseology and crude stereotyping, the essay was actually written as a defense of the Jews. It was a retort to Bruno Bauer, who had argued that Jews should not be granted full civic rights and freedoms unless they were baptised as Christians"

Even the chief rabbi of the UK, Jonathan Sacks, regards calling Marx anti-Semitic as an anachronism at best. What Marx wrote about the Jews was no worse (or better) than just about any other philosopher at the time. "Anti-Semitism" wasn't even an expression and no one had any idea of the horrors that would later befall the Jewish people.

Please don't interpret historic texts as if they were written only yesterday.

"The Jewish Question" was written by Bruno Bauer, not Karl Marx. Among other things, it agues that jews should give up their religious identity (presumably along with other religious people), to facilitate the creation of a truly secular state.

In "On The Jewish Question", Marx criticizes this idea, and argues that a secular state does not necessarily require individuals to give up their religions. Any number of religions can easily exist within a secular state with no state religion, in fact it is the best possible solution.

And what, pray tell, is honest about exploiting the workers for personal gain?

The über-rich will need to be forced to accept a better society, but that's ok. They've had it coming for a long long time.

You are aware that Marxism talks of the process towards a post-capitalist state with communal decision-making and limited government bureaucracy, right?

Totalitarianism, top-heavy management and the like are the polar opposites of what Marxism stands for.

Again, come back when you've actually read Das Kapital, rather than just the Communist Manifesto (which was deliberately written to be provocative).

The end of private ownership of the means of production is the way forward, as is the move to collective ownership where instead of profits lining the pockets of a few fat cats, workers are fairly compensated for their work.

No, what I'm getting at is that every packet should be treated the same, and not receive preferential handling in relation to other packets based on which subnet it originated from, and how much cash the content provider put in the pocket of the ISP.

You're talking about totalitarianism under the false guise of socialism. For instance in the case of the USSR.

Come back when you've read up on what Marxism really is. Hint: It's not the same as USSR-style communism.

Learned, used and discarded. It is not worth the effort to argue in a civil manner with blithering idiots. They deliberately misunderstand everything.

As long as you're not (willfully or otherwise) specifically dropping 50% more Wikipedia packets than Facebook packets, you're not violating net neutrality.

The whole point is to treat all data equally, no matter which device, OS, application, source or destination is involved. It is the ONLY way to ensure an open and innovative Internet.

"Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication."

That's what Net Neutrality is, as opposed to whatever it is you're describing in your post.

Are you stupid, or just ignorant?

Net neutrality isn't about giving everyone the exact same internet connection speeds. Net neutrality is about securing that everyone gets equal access to services. Most importantly, it means that ISPs can't artificially create "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" for various services, depending on how lucrative of a deal they strike with content providers.