Are you nuts? This is going to help my mom to walk. Screw military applications—if they can make this work, it will change the lives of a lot of people who have physical disabilities.

More importantly, it's the only restaurant in town, and there are no grocery stores. So if you want a cheeseburger, you go there. And because of that, they can charge you extra for better service, because nobody else is able to offer you service at all. Honestly, the restaurant analogy doesn't work very well.

If you want to use your restaurant analogy, what he's saying is that if the restaurant charges _me_ $5 for a hot dog, they also have to charge _you_ $5 for a hot dog. But no, that analogy still doesn't work, because what's going on here is that the ISP has the only path between you and the greater internet. And they are saying to online services, "look, guys, if you want to get a clean connection to our customers, you have to pay the vig. otherwise, we put you on the congested router, and your customers switch to someone who paid the vig." This is a problem because it disadvantages new entrants to the market: it is anti-competitive. So yes, us pro-competition "commies" want that stopped. I'm not clear on how that makes us commies, but whatever...

No, that would be a good analogy if the FCC were going to require Amazon and Newegg to sell their stuff at the same prices. Which they are not going to do, as far as I know.

Well, his chart is a good clarifying bit. But aside from that, he seems to be in complete agreement with John Oliver and all the other stories I've read on the topic: the problem is, truly, not with fast lanes, but with slow lanes. If they were not dicking with Level 3 by giving them a more congested link than they give Google, we would have nothing to complain about. The point about the last mile is also true, and going back to Common Carrier-based regulation would address that point, because it would re-open the ability of the FCC to require carriers to sell last-mile bandwidth to their own internal business units for the same price that they sell it to competitors. This is not something new to the discussion, although I will admit that not every article about Net Neutrality covers it.

So I guess this article is worth reading, because I think it does hit on all the major points, but the characterization that it's the first to do so, and that everybody else has gotten it wrong, is essentially clickbait. Forgivable, since in this case the article is worth reading.

RIght, and we should definitely support this plan of yours by relaxing the laws on emission controls... Because after all your desire not to have to repair the computer totally trumps any desire we have to breathe clean air and not see forests destroyed by acid rain.

Yes, well, we also do a lot to make sure that they don't actually have the opportunity to have a safe environment, and I suspect that feels worse. Talk about arrogance!

It's not—if they can use the TV, they will want to. The problem is that most likely they can't. Even if it's in working order, it has to be able to display the signals that are available to receive, and you have to be able to get power for it. And CRTs draw a lot of power.

In principle, reuse is a really good thing. And in some cases it's a good thing in practice too. There are definitely things we can export to Nigeria for which Nigerians will benefit from that export. But there is also a very dirty recycling industry in the third world. For stuff they can't use, we ought to keep it and recycle it expensively, rather than shipping it there and have them die young of heavy metal exposure recycling it cheaply.

What would you watch on it? Where would you get the power to run it?

The way quite a bit of e-waste gets out of countries with strong regulations is by being shipped in "working" or "repairable" units, which are in principle allowed by law, even though they are actually waste. So this may be a bad thing, or may be a good thing, depending on the details. The mere fact that the devices are working or repairable does not mean that they aren't waste--if someone gave you a working 20-year-old TV, would you want it?

No, I didn't know that, because it's not true. Actually, the numbers are just about even.

If your helmet is making so much noise, consider (a) wearing earplugs and (b) tweaking your fairing setup. I had the same problem on my R100RS, and I'm pretty sure it's because of the way the wind was breaking off the fairing. It might seem like wearing earplugs would make it worse, but it cuts down on the white noise and seems to allow more signal to get through. Anyway, if you can't hear an siren blaring right behind you, you have a problem.

That said, your basic point, that _you_ have to be the one to see potential accidents and avoid them, is completely true. Straight pipes are a way to try to get more people to be aware of you, but you are still relying on their competence and good will, one of which you are wrecking, and the other of which you are compromising when you use pipes so loud they cause a stress reaction.

Bikers appreciate all kinds of different things. I like something that handles nicely in the turns and has lots of torque. Quiet is a bonus for me, not a drawback.

Oh, are you one of those people who thinks a glass muffler gets you noticed and keeps you safe? More likely startles some poor minivan driver into swerving into your path. If you want to stay safe, the way to do it is to pay attention. Keeping the bike quiet means you'll hear Mr. Minivan coming. See and avoid, man. See and avoid.

I'd look badass on one of these.

And man, did you see the hair on those guys? Do they actually ride motorcycles?