Oh, I have one of the newer USB version of the Model M keyboard. I don't use it because it seems to cause carpal tunnel where I have more prosaic keyboards. But my main keyboards are very similar to the Model M in layout and key travel, they just are quieter, and one has less outside plastic - but the keys are the same size, or near enough I can't see the difference.

By full size keyboard, I have generally took it to mean the standard keyboard including 12 F keys, the print screen, pause break etc, the 6 key insert/home etc block, arrow keys and numeric keyboard. I much prefer the narrow enter key with backspace above it like on the Model M.

"Full size" keyboards are necessary for me for typing speed. I can type about as fast as I can compose thoughts on one of those. On the tablet touch screens? It's an exercise in frustration how slow and error prone it is to "type" on those. Decent laptop keyboards are somewhere in between, though the touchpads often interfere with typing in a way the mouse does not.

I'm convinced that people do this on purpose, not out of forgetfulness.

Ok - why would people do this on purpose? They want to enhance the danger of their driving? They're afraid they'll wear out the mechanism? They want to keep other drivers guessing?

I can get forgetting to do so, very occasionally I'll forget, or make a mistake etc. But why would I actively choose to make it more likely someone will misunderstand what I'm doing and hit my car, possibly injuring me?

You can, but it doesn't mean it's the best for everyone. I prefer a full size, "real" keyboard and mouse. I like being able to keep my PC for 4+ years by upgrading the RAM and Video Card halfway through. I like being able to replace the DVD RW with a BDRW if I want. I can swap the PSU if it dies.

Laptops always have compromises. The closest to these desktops in that sort of features tended to be the W series Thinkpads. But they weight ~ 7lbs, and get ~ 4.5Hrs battery life at best. That's not the sort of device you're talking about.

Tablets have even more compromises. No upgrading RAM, many don't let you upgrade storage via SD cards, or don't have USB for external anything. If you want your main computing device to have a 10" or so screen, then yes, a tablet will potentially do for you - but many many people want larger screens. Many of those people don't need portability, or at least prefer cheaper over portability. And I doubt Windows Tablets are ever going to work out to be cheaper than a "Best Buy Special" sale for $300 that can get someone on the Internet and likely last them 3-4 years...

Hmm, the problem I see is for many organizations, if we're going to pay someone hourly, we'd basically need to hire them anyway, so why bother with freelancing. Otherwise, we just worry (and have been victim of) people just dragging out their tasks to raise billable hours.

For outsourcing, we have to get set amounts approved. So per milestone or per project. Of course, that's not universal, many places could do per hour open ended.

And how is this going to work for CCK builds that push configuration to end users on corporate computers?

Why the heck would the United States need secret plans for "Regional Czars"? I mean, our government is already decentralized publicly. We have these things called states that you could think of like "Regions" that have Governers that could be the "Czars".

Seriously, the federal govt thinking we couldn't run under the state govts in emergencies, or heck, day to day ticks me off.

I'm also barely interested in the argument, because I think we're having different arguments.

You say my analogies are bad, and then trot out examples that are *just as wrong*. I mean, what do you think toll roads, gas tax or city congestion charges etc are? Billing to cover road wear.

Finally, you also show your "true colors" in that in your mind, NO Analogy is good enough, so anyone who might regulate a system, or at least the Internet, ought to be pretty well versed in computer networking - which I might add is a specialization inside of IT.

Your argument that billing in a certain way is done commonly has nothing to do with my assertion of an opinion that billing in that way is wrong - specifically I think it's taking advantage specifically of peoples ignorance, and ripping them off. 95% billing is generally used for network interconnects and seems much more fair to me. That's also common, as is flat rate billing. It's common for people to be mugged in cities, doesn't make it right...

I probably haven't been clear enough, but I never intended to excuse ignorance - and I don't see that I've done so, but I know what I meant.

To step back - in the real world - the one we all live in, regulation is generally done by politicians or bureaucrats. Rarely do experts in some field regulate the field, and when they do, there's often conflicts of interest that arise - I'm imagining guilds or systems like the bar and the AMA that basically just regulate to keep out competition.

If you want to change the "real world", you need to communicate with people who aren't in your field in a way that doesn't require them to go take several classes or 5 years of domain experience. Hell, that's the point of this article - that dismissing people because they don't understand the signaling on the cable that forms the ethernet protocol that is then wrapped in an IP packet and routed etc and OSI model etc - that's like the high-school English teacher who complained about people misusing whom or may vs can. It's the complainer who gets dismissed, because frankly - no one cares.

Finally, how about you provide the mythical better analogy? I thought of the mail system, but it's not clear to me that it's better, just that it may get bogged down in details that don't matter depending on the point you're trying to address (in my case, why billing per byte seems to me to be a scam for the user). In no way does addressability per envelope, sorting, etc help illuminate anything about the point that internet throughput is largely determined by second in time capacity, and filling that capacity for a second or a month won't directly increase cost to the vendor for the equipment.

Maybe you thought I was arguing about net neutrality, or filtering attempts, or who knows what, but I was pretty much only trying to give a narrow example about flat rate vs per byte billing, and why caps don't address anything about the ISPs actual costs.

I got a PS4 for christmas, I've stacked it under my PS3. I figure PS is lesser of 3 gaming evils - supporting MS into another attempted monopoly, all the crap of Windows gaming as here, and Sony's stupidity. But their hardware shouldn't get more broken, and in my limited game play time, hasn't acros PS3 or PS4. Of course, I don't game online or pay for PSN so that didn't affect me.

What is the "shit" about the PS4 though?

Look, analogies are often not perfect. You're right that water in pipes doesn't route discreetly to given addresses. Roads and trucks isn't better in my opinion. Trucks can actively damage the road - data can't damage a router. The main point these analogies are usually used to make is that bill per byte doesn't make sense.

On roads, bill per mile certainly makes sense and is implemented in many places, because using the road quickly wears it out.

With pipes and hoses and ethernet - this really isn't the case, at least at a human scale of observation.

Also, with pipes - the system moves and directs the water - like ethernet, the frames are passive. Trucks direct themselves and the roads are passive - pretty much opposite of how data networks work.

Maybe it's been too long since my networking classes, and I haven't dived deeply enough into the networking at work - but sizing and implementing capacity rarely takes routing into consideration except insofar in bulk amounts a router or switch can route. This is pretty much directly analogous to pump specs and pipe sizes.

I too laughed at the "Internet is a bunch of tubes" when it was said in that particular politicians speech - but mainly due to other context.

That said, as an analogy - you could do far worse than plumbing in my opinion. For instance: there's a certain capital cost to putting in a certain throughput "pipe", and some maintenance in replacing failed "pipes", but in either case the cost doesn't go up or down based on the total volume of "stuff" sent through those pipes. The cost varies on how much "stuff" can go through at once, whether it's water or data.

The part where it breaks down is that water does have an incremental cost whereas data doesn't. But if you have a pump from a pond, it doesn't cost you appreciably more to run the water through a hose for 1 hour a day or 24 hours a day. It does cost appreciably more to get a 3" pipe filled from that pond than a 1/2" hose if you want the same pressure...

Hilariously, for power users, the command line / search is probably easier than the mouse. Heck, for servers, Microsoft is pretty much saying you use a powershell command prompt to do everything and GUIs are slowly not being written for new OSs.

Now, as I work 50% of my time on RHEL servers, once I set up SSH on my Domain Controllers, it lets me integrate much easier from Linux to process commands on Windows. Makes things like Puppet easier too.

However, I don't imagine I'm the average Windows user or server administrator. I always figured the only reason Windows got market share from Unix was the GUIs so less experienced people could "admin" them. But now Microsoft is throwing that away (albeit slowly).

Oh well, if I have to choose between the unusable mess of Metro and Powershell, Powershell via SSH wins for me every time.

I don't know - there's convenience. I can get many many things via Amazon in 2 days, often before I could go to a store (I have to drive 20 miles from my house to any appreciable store like Target). I can subscribe for things so they just show up. I don't have to search a store to find them. And I know the security and return policy.

Is cheapest best? Sometimes, but if it means I need to wait a week or a month vs 2 days, that's maybe too long. If it means that I might not be able to return something if it arrives broken without eating shipping costs (Newegg), that's not great...

Well, that and tools. So, I've done some joint repair on household stuff (changed out carpeting for laminate, replaced faucet, replaced shower stall) with my sister. The basics isn't hard, and youtube and the rest of the net will teach you a lot.

But for Laminate, you have to buy a table saw to cut to size, plus a laminate blade. For the shower, you need caulk gun, and drill. Etc. These add up, and they're not really items you want to buy for one use, and then store somewhere forever.

Same for cars, there's a lot of special tools often needed.

Now, if you're regularly going to help people with putting in laminate, or repairing cars, buying the tools might make sense. If you just need it fixed once, paying someone else might still be cheaper.

Makes me glad I have a Subaru. Every one I've owned (3) or my family has owned (5 more) has the battery on a shelf right side, near the front of the hood. It's not blocked by anything. Now, the windshield washer reservoir is hidden down under everything with a fill neck, so that's probably how they get the battery easily accessible.

Then again, I've replaced batteries, but never the washer fluid reservoir.

I think most of us don't. I *feel* like I don't have money, but that's because I can't just purchase a $1200 drone, or pay my sisters rent for her if she needs it; not because I can't spend $100 without worrying.

I guess when a $70 meal out is possible even though "I feel broke", I don't really know what not having money is like.

I suppose this is also what is "wrong" with "rich" people (define those words how you like) - you probably never feel comfortable because there is always some expense or some expensive thing you can imagine that you just can't afford.